Burke v. Railroad Retirement Board

D.C. Circuit

Burke v. Railroad Retirement Board

165 F.2d 24, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 40, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3733

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 29, 1947

DocketNo. 9594

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 165 F.2d 24 (Burke v. Railroad Retirement Board) 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

Burke v. Railroad Retirement Board, 165 F.2d 24, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 40, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3733 (D.C. Cir. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for review of a decision of the Railroad Retirement Board. 52 Stat. 1100, § 5(f), 45 U.S.C.A. § 355(f), as amended, 60 Stat. 738, § 314, 45 U.S.C.A. § 355(f). The decision requires petitioner to repay a retirement annuity which, the Board found, had been erroneously paid. In his application for the annuity, petitioner stated to the Board that he had “not worked for any other person, institution, or company for compensation” since he left railroad service. He was in fact employed as an assistant clerk of the Orphans’ Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. We have two questions for decision. (1) Was petitioner’s employer a “person” within the meaning of § 2(a), (b), and (d) of the Railroad Retirement Act, 50 Stat. 309, 310, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228b?¹ We think the Board was right in answering this question in the affirmative. Section 1 (n) of the Act, 50 Stat. 309, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228a(n), defines “person” as meaning “an individual, a partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, or a corporation.” Where, as here, the context and purpose require, the statutory term “person,” as defined to include “corporation,” includes a governmental body. Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 54 S.Ct. 725, 78 L.Ed. 1307; Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed, 1346. (2) Did [25]*25the evidence before the Board require it, as a matter of law, to find that petitioner was without fault in -obtaining annuity payments and that recovery of them from him would be contrary to the purpose of the Act or would be against equity or good! conscience? 54 Stat. 1100, § 26, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228i(c). Though the evidence might perhaps have supported findings in petitioner’s favor on these points, if the Board had made such findings, it clearly supports the findings adverse to him which the Board has made, Aifirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for review of a decision of the Railroad Retirement Board. 52 Stat. 1100, § 5(f), 45 U.S.C.A. § 355(f), as amended, 60 Stat. 738, § 314, 45 U.S.C.A. § 355(f). The decision requires petitioner to repay a retirement annuity which, the Board found, had been erroneously paid. In his application for the annuity, petitioner stated to the Board that he had “not worked for any other person, institution, or company for compensation” since he left railroad service. He was in fact employed as an assistant clerk of the Orphans’ Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. We have two questions for decision. (1) Was petitioner’s employer a “person” within the meaning of § 2(a), (b), and (d) of the Railroad Retirement Act, 50 Stat. 309, 310, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228b?¹ We think the Board was right in answering this question in the affirmative. Section 1 (n) of the Act, 50 Stat. 309, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228a(n), defines “person” as meaning “an individual, a partnership, an association, a joint-stock company, or a corporation.” Where, as here, the context and purpose require, the statutory term “person,” as defined to include “corporation,” includes a governmental body. Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360, 54 S.Ct. 725, 78 L.Ed. 1307; Georgia v. Evans, 316 U.S. 159, 62 S.Ct. 972, 86 L.Ed, 1346. (2) Did [25]*25the evidence before the Board require it, as a matter of law, to find that petitioner was without fault in -obtaining annuity payments and that recovery of them from him would be contrary to the purpose of the Act or would be against equity or good! conscience? 54 Stat. 1100, § 26, 45 U.S.C.A. § 228i(c). Though the evidence might perhaps have supported findings in petitioner’s favor on these points, if the Board had made such findings, it clearly supports the findings adverse to him which the Board has made, Aifirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 F.2d 24, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 40, 1947 U.S. App. LEXIS 3733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-railroad-retirement-board-cadc-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack