Clayton M. Jones v. The United States of America

D.C. Circuit

Clayton M. Jones v. The United States of America

228 F.2d 52, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 81, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3645

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 1955

Docket18-1114

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 228 F.2d 52 (Clayton M. Jones v. The United States of America) 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

Clayton M. Jones v. The United States of America, 228 F.2d 52, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 81, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3645 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM;.

Plaintiffé-appellants' sued ' the United States in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, underthe Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. §§.-1346(b), 2674, 2680, 2401 (b) (1952). They charged that the Director of the United States Geological Survey had furnished them with erroneous information, on which they had relied to their detriment in later selling certain stock at less than its true valué. Their complaint, in separately stated causes of action, alleged both deceit and negligence. The trial judge dismissed the complaint. D.C.1952, 120 F.Supp. 894. The Second Circuit affirmed. Jones v. United States, 1953, 207 F.2d 563, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 921, 74 S.Ct. 518, 98 L.Ed. 1075, rehearing denied 1954, 347 U.S. 940, 74 S.Ct. 627, 98 L.Ed. 1089.

Later, plaintiffs-appellants brought the present suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Their complaint was couched in substantially the same terms as the cause of action for “negligence” alleged in the prior one. It said that the Director failed to exercise due care and was negligent in-failing to furnish, plaintiffs'“with thé actual data or estimate Of the ultimate recoverable reserves then in the custody *53 and record of the Survey at the time”; it further alleged that they were entitled by law to the requested information under 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 488-489. The District Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 1954, 126 F.Supp. 10.

Clearly, this second suit is barred as res judicata. The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed on that ground. Stoll v. Gottlieb, 1938, 305 U.S. 165, 172, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104. We need not discuss the other points raised.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM;.

Plaintiffé-appellants' sued ' the United States in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, underthe Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. §§.-1346(b), 2674, 2680, 2401 (b) (1952). They charged that the Director of the United States Geological Survey had furnished them with erroneous information, on which they had relied to their detriment in later selling certain stock at less than its true valué. Their complaint, in separately stated causes of action, alleged both deceit and negligence. The trial judge dismissed the complaint. D.C.1952, 120 F.Supp. 894. The Second Circuit affirmed. Jones v. United States, 1953, 207 F.2d 563, certiorari denied 347 U.S. 921, 74 S.Ct. 518, 98 L.Ed. 1075, rehearing denied 1954, 347 U.S. 940, 74 S.Ct. 627, 98 L.Ed. 1089.

Later, plaintiffs-appellants brought the present suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Their complaint was couched in substantially the same terms as the cause of action for “negligence” alleged in the prior one. It said that the Director failed to exercise due care and was negligent in-failing to furnish, plaintiffs'“with thé actual data or estimate Of the ultimate recoverable reserves then in the custody *53 and record of the Survey at the time”; it further alleged that they were entitled by law to the requested information under 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 488-489. The District Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 1954, 126 F.Supp. 10.

Clearly, this second suit is barred as res judicata. The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed on that ground. Stoll v. Gottlieb, 1938, 305 U.S. 165, 172, 59 S.Ct. 134, 83 L.Ed. 104. We need not discuss the other points raised.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 F.2d 52, 97 U.S. App. D.C. 81, 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-m-jones-v-the-united-states-of-america-cadc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack