Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive
Search
Yahoo! News
Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Love, v. Stevens, Secretary of Army et al
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 207 F.2d 32
Argued June 30, 1953.Decided July 30, 1953.Petition for Rehearing Denied Aug. 19, 1953
Mr. Harold R. Love, appellant, pro se.
Mr. Joseph Langbart, Attorney, Department of Justice, with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U.S. Atty., William R. Glendon, Asst. U.S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed, and Edward H. Hickey, Attorney, Department of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Charles M. Irelan, U.S. Atty. at the time the record was filed, and Mr. William J. Peck, Asst. U.S. Atty., also entered appearances for appellees.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In the District Court appellant sought relief against officials of the United States by reason of (1) his suspension from Government employment for a few months in 1944-1945, (2) a short additional suspension and dismissal in 1947, and (3) suspension in 1951, without a hearing, of his eligibility status for appointment as an Internal Revenue agent. The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, basing its action on the first claim upon plaintiff's laches, on the second suspension and dismissal upon res judicata,1 and on the third upon lack of standing to sue. We affirm on the same grounds except as to the third claim we base affirmance on the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action.
Affirmed.
See Love v. United States, 1951, 98 F.Supp. 770, 119 Ct.Cl. 486, and Love v. United States, 1952, 104 F.Supp. 102, 122 Ct.Cl. 144