TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cornell Joel Grossman, D.D.S. v. United States of America, United States Atomic Energy Commission

Cornell Joel Grossman, D.D.S. v. United States, United States Atomic Energy Comm'n, 246 F.2d 709 (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
June 13, 1957
Docket
No. 18-1218
Citations
246 F.2d 709101 U.S. App. D.C. 22113 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 5041957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4851

Opinion

246 F.2d 709

Cornell Joel GROSSMAN, D.D.S., Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, United States Atomic Energy Commission, Respondents.

No. 12959.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued June 5, 1957.

Decided June 13, 1957.

Cornell Joel Grossman, petitioner pro se.

Mr. William W. Fleming, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. George C. Doub, Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Melvin Richter, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for respondents.

Before EDGERTON, Chief Judge, and WILBUR K. MILLER and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

Petitioner, as his brief tells us, "prays that this court remand the appellant's request for compensation, and recognition, to the United States Atomic Energy Commission, as the inventor who first gave the atomic hydrogen bomb formulas to the United States of America." By our order of February 10, 1956, we remanded the case to the Commission that the petitioner might there seek the administrative relief to which he believes himself entitled. A hearing was accordingly held by the Commission's Patent Compensation Board where petitioner was afforded an opportunity once again to present his claim in full and to submit his evidence. We are not shown that the Board erred. Its determination that the petitioner has no valid claim under the Atomic Energy Acts 1 is affirmed.

Notes:

1

Sec. 11(e), Atomic Energy Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 755 , 769, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1811 (e); Sec. 157 and Sec. 189, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 919 , 947, 955, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2187 , 2239

How later courts describe this case

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

1957: 11961: 119572026peak 1957 · 1

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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