Campbell v. Deviny, Public Printer

D.C. Circuit

Campbell v. Deviny, Public Printer

194 F.2d 881, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 176, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2857

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1952

Docket10147

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 194 F.2d 881 (Campbell v. Deviny, Public Printer) 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

Campbell v. Deviny, Public Printer, 194 F.2d 881, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 176, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2857 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was employed at the Government Printing Office as an “Estimator-Jacket Preparer”, Grade CAF-7, at an annual salary of $3,000. From January 29, 1943, to January 23, 1946, he was -in the military service, being honorably discharged on the latter date. During his absence there was a reorganization of his Division in the Office. He was returned to duty as an Estimator and Specification Writer, with a salary of $3,640. Subsequent adjustments brought his salary to $4,900 and his designation to “Planner”. He brought a civil action in the District Court, alleging that the position which he had held when he entered military service had, during his absence, been reallocated, 1 and praying for a writ of mandamus to' require the appellee Public Printer and members of the Civil Service Commission to restore him to his former position as thus reallocated. A motion for summary judgment, with supporting affidavits, was filed by the defendants, and a cross-motion for summary judgment upon the question of the court’s jurisdiction, with a supporting affidavit, was filed by Campbell. The District Court rendered judgment for the defendants and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, . an opinion being filed by Judge Letts. 2 We agree with that opinion, and upon that basis the judgment will be Affirmed.

1

. Affidavits showed his claim to be that the position as reallocated was a Grade CAF-11 position, salary $3,800. The defendant officials denied that the claimed position was comparable to the position originally held by Campbell.

2

. Campbell v. Deviny, D.C.D.O.1949, 81 P.Supp. 657.

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

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was employed at the Government Printing Office as an “Estimator-Jacket Preparer”, Grade CAF-7, at an annual salary of $3,000. From January 29, 1943, to January 23, 1946, he was -in the military service, being honorably discharged on the latter date. During his absence there was a reorganization of his Division in the Office. He was returned to duty as an Estimator and Specification Writer, with a salary of $3,640. Subsequent adjustments brought his salary to $4,900 and his designation to “Planner”. He brought a civil action in the District Court, alleging that the position which he had held when he entered military service had, during his absence, been reallocated, 1 and praying for a writ of mandamus to' require the appellee Public Printer and members of the Civil Service Commission to restore him to his former position as thus reallocated. A motion for summary judgment, with supporting affidavits, was filed by the defendants, and a cross-motion for summary judgment upon the question of the court’s jurisdiction, with a supporting affidavit, was filed by Campbell. The District Court rendered judgment for the defendants and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, . an opinion being filed by Judge Letts. 2 We agree with that opinion, and upon that basis the judgment will be Affirmed.

1

. Affidavits showed his claim to be that the position as reallocated was a Grade CAF-11 position, salary $3,800. The defendant officials denied that the claimed position was comparable to the position originally held by Campbell.

2

. Campbell v. Deviny, D.C.D.O.1949, 81 P.Supp. 657.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 F.2d 881, 90 U.S. App. D.C. 176, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-deviny-public-printer-cadc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack