Cooperative Services, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

562 F.2d 1292, 183 U.S. App. D.C. 344
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedSeptember 2, 1977
Docket76-1193
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 562 F.2d 1292 (Cooperative Services, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) 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
Cooperative Services, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 562 F.2d 1292, 183 U.S. App. D.C. 344 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

Opinions

Opinion for the court per curiam.

Dissenting opinion filed by LEVEN-THAL, Circuit Judge.

JUDGMENT

This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was argued by counsel.

This case was tried in the District Court on the basis of a formal pretrial stipulation agreed to by all parties. See Cooperative Services, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, 410 F.Supp. 865 (D.D.C. 1976). Given that stipulation, the findings and conclusions of the District Court are correct. They are hereby affirmed. Given the legislative changes since the events in suit here, however, the complete remedy ordered by the District Court is inappropriate if not impossible at this time. Under the circumstances,

It is ORDERED by this court that this case is hereby remanded to the District Court with instructions to order appellants to file with the District Court a plan which in appellants’ judgment provides an appropriate resolution of this case given the fact that the merits have been decided in favor of appellees. In preparing the plan appellants should consult with appellees in an effort to arrive at a fair and equitable result. If the plan proposed by appellants is not acceptable to the District Court, that court will order its own remedy, subject to appeal to this court in any event.

So ordered.

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

Related

Campbell v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia, 2016
Keystone Shipping Co. v. United States
801 F. Supp. 771 (District of Columbia, 1992)
Lucio v. Yeutter
798 F. Supp. 39 (District of Columbia, 1992)
District of Columbia v. United States Department of Commerce
789 F. Supp. 1179 (District of Columbia, 1992)
Car-Mar Construction Corp. v. Skinner
777 F. Supp. 50 (District of Columbia, 1991)
United States v. Roper
681 F. Supp. 77 (D. Maine, 1988)
Vitale v. City of Kansas City, Mo.
678 F. Supp. 220 (W.D. Missouri, 1988)
Curran v. Office of Personnel Management Bureau of Retirement
566 F. Supp. 1511 (District of Columbia, 1983)
Cohen v. Smith
534 F. Supp. 618 (S.D. Texas, 1982)
June Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Andrus
506 F. Supp. 1204 (D. Colorado, 1981)
Central Okl. Preservation A. v. OKL. CITY, ETC.
471 F. Supp. 68 (W.D. Oklahoma, 1979)
William D. Hurst v. The United States Postal Service
586 F.2d 1197 (Eighth Circuit, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
562 F.2d 1292, 183 U.S. App. D.C. 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooperative-services-inc-v-us-department-of-housing-and-urban-cadc-1977.