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
Albert F. Jordan, Superintendent of Insurance of Thedistrict of Columbia, Appellant, v. Herbert M. Pilzer, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. - 234 F.2d 41
Argued Feb. 10, 1956.Decided Feb. 23, 1956
Mr. Lyman J. Umstead, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Vernon E. West, Corp. Counsel, Chester H. Gray, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Milton D. Korman, Asst. Corp. Counsel, submitted on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Alfred M. Schwartz, Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellee sought and the District Court granted an injunction to restrain the Superintendent of Insurance from refusing to renew appellee's applications for a broker's and policywriting agent's license for fire, casualty and surety business and for a solicitor's license. This appeal followed. The District Court concluded that the Superintendent's order [98 U.S.App.D.C. 221] denying appellee's applications lacked a reasonable basis or support in the evidence. Accordingly he directed the Superintendent to issue the licenses applied for. This appeal had been taken and the District's brief had been filed before our opinion in No. 12486-- Atlantic Insurance Co. v. Jordan, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 229 F.2d 758 (P.C.Cir.1955). That case, in principle, is controlling here, and accordingly the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.