Clark v. Dulles

District of Columbia

Clark v. Dulles

129 F. Supp. 950, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3621

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided February 28, 1955·No. Civ. A. No. 2620-54·Published

Opinion

SCHWEINHAUT, District Judge.

I have this day decided the ease of Nathan v. Dulles, D.C., 129 F.Supp. 951, and the reasoning in that case applies equally, it seems to me, in this one. It is urged by the government that the plaintiff had a “hearing” in that he personally talked to and corresponded with the then Under Secretary of State. I do not believe that that was a hearing in the sense that the law has in mind. I think, therefore, that the plaintiff should have a hearing in the State Department but I do not suggest or direct the manner in which the hearing should be conducted.

The motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment are both denied and an appropriate order will be signed.

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

SCHWEINHAUT, District Judge.

I have this day decided the ease of Nathan v. Dulles, D.C., 129 F.Supp. 951, and the reasoning in that case applies equally, it seems to me, in this one. It is urged by the government that the plaintiff had a “hearing” in that he personally talked to and corresponded with the then Under Secretary of State. I do not believe that that was a hearing in the sense that the law has in mind. I think, therefore, that the plaintiff should have a hearing in the State Department but I do not suggest or direct the manner in which the hearing should be conducted.

The motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment are both denied and an appropriate order will be signed.

Clark v. Dulles, 129 F. Supp. 950, 1955 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3621 (D.D.C. 1955).

Pincite

129 F. Supp. 950 (Clark v. Dulles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related