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
Joseph S. Gullo and Vivian B. Gullo, Appellants, v. Veterans Cooperative Housing Association et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. - 269 F.2d 517
Argued May 15, 1959.Decided May 28, 1959
Mr. Joseph S. Gullo, Arlington, Va., for appellants.
Mr. Paul Daniel, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Carlyle C. Ring, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Veterans Cooperative Housing Ass'n. Mr. James R. Worsley, Jr., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee Veterans Cooperative Housing Ass'n.
Mr. Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, and Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee District of Columbia.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, BAZELON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case was dismissed by the District Court apparently on the ground of res judicata, the court taking judicial notice of the previous case between the parties, the details of which are spelled out in Gullo v. Veterans Cooperative Housing Association, 1957, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 167, 247 F.2d 573.
In all its essential particulars, the present action is the same as that of the previous case, and the District Court correctly applied the doctrine of res judicata.
While the defense of laches was interposed, it is not necessary that we pass on that issue.
Affirmed.