TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Buck, Paymaster General of the Navy v. Snyder

BUCK, Paymaster General of the Navy, v. SNYDER

Buck, Paymaster Gen. of the Navy v. Snyder, 179 F.2d 466 (D.C. Cir. 1949)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Subsequent history: aff'd, Snyder v. Buck, 340 U.S. 15 (1950). (read from the later opinion; check before relying)

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 16, 1949
Docket
No. 9847_1
Judges
Clark, Per Curiam, Prettyman, Proctor
Citations
179 F.2d 46685 U.S. App. D.C. 428

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel; and thereafter on request of the court the parties filed memoranda on the question whether the case has abated.

On consideration whereof, and it appearing that appellant Rear Admiral W. A. Buck, sued herein as Paymaster General of the Navy, resigned such office on March 1, 1948, and was succeeded by Read Admiral Edwin D. Foster, who now holds that office, and it appearing that no motion was made under Section 11 of the Act of February 13, 1925 (formerly Sec. 780, Title 28, U.S.Code, 1

which was repealed by the Act of June 25, 1948, Ch. 646, 62 Stat. 992 , effective September 1, 1948), requesting the Court to “permit the cause to be continued and maintained by or against the successor in office of such officer,” and that the six-months period within which such a motion could have been made expired September 1, 1948, and the Court being of opinion that the action has abated because of failure to substitute appellant’s successor [See Defense Supplies Corp. v. Lawrence Co., 1949, 336 U.S. 631 , 69 S.Ct. 762 , particularly that portion of the opinion dealing with United States ex rel. Claussen v. Curran, 1928, 276 U.S. 590 , 48 S.Ct. 206 , 72 L.Ed. 720 ] it is Ordered by the Court that the judgment of the District Court on appeal in this case be, and it is hereby, vacated and that this case be, and it is hereby, remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint as abated.

1

. Covered by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 25, 28 U.S.C.A.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1950: 21954: 11956: 11959: 11962: 11972: 12009: 219502026peak 1950 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lehmann v. Acheson, Secretary of State of United States214 F.2d 403 (3d Cir. 1954)
  2. Chavers v. Hobby19 F.R.D. 393 (D.N.J. 1956)
  3. Schuetzle v. Duba201 F. Supp. 754 (D.S.D. 1962)
  4. Hannah Levine v. Marion B. Folsom, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare268 F.2d 531 (8th Cir. 1959)
  5. Ileto v. Glock, Inc.565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009)
  6. Snyder v. Buck340 U.S. 15 (1950)

Most recent

  1. Ileto v. Glock, Inc.565 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2009)
  2. Ileto v. Glock, Inc.No. 06-56872 (9th Cir. May 11, 2009)
  3. Baldeviso v. Thompson504 P.2d 1217 (Haw. 1972)
  4. Schuetzle v. Duba201 F. Supp. 754 (D.S.D. 1962)
  5. Hannah Levine v. Marion B. Folsom, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare268 F.2d 531 (8th Cir. 1959)
  6. Chavers v. Hobby19 F.R.D. 393 (D.N.J. 1956)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Def. Supplies Corp. v. Lawrence Warehouse Co., 336 U.S. 631 (1949) 46

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list