Albert F. Jordan, Superintendent of Insurance of the District of Columbia v. Herbert M. Pilzer

D.C. Circuit

Albert F. Jordan, Superintendent of Insurance of the District of Columbia v. Herbert M. Pilzer

234 F.2d 41, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 220, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3663

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 1956

Docket12904_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 234 F.2d 41 (Albert F. Jordan, Superintendent of Insurance of the District of Columbia v. Herbert M. Pilzer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albert F. Jordan, Superintendent of Insurance of the District of Columbia v. Herbert M. Pilzer, 234 F.2d 41, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 220, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3663 (D.C. Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

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 ordei *42 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 ordei *42 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F.2d 41, 98 U.S. App. D.C. 220, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-f-jordan-superintendent-of-insurance-of-the-district-of-columbia-cadc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack