TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Frank v. Dilatush v. Charles E. Wilson, Secretary of Defense

Frank v. DILATUSH, Appellant, v. Charles E. WILSON, Secretary of Defense, Et Al., Appellees

Frank v. Dilatush v. Charles E. Wilson, Sec'y of Def., 239 F.2d 44 (D.C. Cir. 1957)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 25, 1957
Docket
No. 17-1201
Judges
Edgerton, Prettyman, Fahy
Citations
239 F.2d 44

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The District Court granted the motion of appellees 1

for summary judgment and denied that of appellant. He had sued in the District Court for a declaratory judgment that he had been unlawfully discharged from Government service and for kindred relief. As an employee eligible for veteran’s preference he alleged in the District Court and here contends that his discharge did not accord with the procedural requirements of section 14 of the Veterans Preference Act, 58 Stat. 390 (1944), as amended, 5 U.S.C.A. § 863 (1952). Particularly he contends that the notice given him of the reasons for his proposed discharge was lacking in the required specificity and detail, and also that the action finally taken was not supported by proper findings and the reasons assigned therefor did not conform with those of which he had been given notice. No issues of fact were involved. The questions for decision in the District Court were the sufficiency in law of the findings and procedures followed by appellees. Accordingly the court properly decided the case on motion for summary judgment.

We conclude that the findings and proceedings which eventuated in appellant’s discharge met the requirements of the applicable statute and regulations. See Blackmon v. Lee, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 268 , 205 F.2d 13 .

Affirmed.

1

. Appellees, defendants in the District Court, are the Secretary of Defense, the Seeretary of the Air Force, and the Chairman and Members of the Civil Service Commission, all described in the complaint by name as well as by office.

How later courts describe this case

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

1960: 11963: 11988: 119602026peak 1960 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wilder v. Prokop846 F.2d 613 (10th Cir. 1988)
  2. Brown v. Macy222 F. Supp. 639 (E.D. La. 1963)
  3. Dilatush v. United States151 Ct. Cl. 405 (Ct. Cl. 1960)

Most recent

  1. Wilder v. Prokop846 F.2d 613 (10th Cir. 1988)
  2. Brown v. Macy222 F. Supp. 639 (E.D. La. 1963)
  3. Dilatush v. United States151 Ct. Cl. 405 (Ct. Cl. 1960)

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
Blackmon v. Lee, Deputy Adm'r, Civil Aeronautics Admin., 205 F.2d 13 (D.C. Cir. 1953) 10

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