Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

329 F.2d 230

Docket No. 17742.

Harshaw v. Perry

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Dec. 4, 1963.

Decided Jan. 9, 1964.

District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1964-01-09

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1964

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Relies on Rodriguez v. New York · United States Arant v. Lane · Jones v. Summerfield

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1964-01-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*231Mr. A. J. Spero, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

¶2Miss Sylvia Bacon, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appel-lees.

¶3Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Bastian and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5 Appellant was an employee in the Government classified service. His employment was terminated, and this action was reviewed by the courts.1 He then claimed reemployment rights. This claim was denied, the final administrative action being taken in March, 1956. The present suit, seeking review of that action, was filed in February, 1960. Several considerations dictate affirmance of the judgment of the District Court. First, the denial of reemployment rights occurred before the suit which terminated in the decision of this court in Harshaw v. Hollister was filed. The issue could have been litigated in that proceeding. Second, the doctrine of laches applies.2

¶6Affirmed.

/329/f2d/230 · .json · Public domain