Edwin D. Dorsey, and Harry Bath v. John Cunningham

D.C. Circuit

Edwin D. Dorsey, and Harry Bath v. John Cunningham

282 F.2d 842, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 359, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 1960

Docket15720_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 F.2d 842 (Edwin D. Dorsey, and Harry Bath v. John Cunningham) 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

Edwin D. Dorsey, and Harry Bath v. John Cunningham, 282 F.2d 842, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 359, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case came on for consideration on the original record and was argued by counsel.

Upon consideration whereof it is Ordered by the Court that the order of the District Court of May 3, 1960, denying the motions of appellants, petitioners for intervention in the District Court, to intervene, is set aside and the District Court is directed to grant the said motions to intervene subject, however, to-the conditions that the appellants, said petitioning intervenors in the District Court, are permitted to intervene by the participation of their counsel, limited in number as the District Court may prescribe, with respect to the filing of such pleadings and papers and the presentation of argument, oral or written, with respect to matters designed to accomplish henceforth the basic purposes of the Consent Decree of January 31, 1958, approved as modified in English v. Cunningham, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 269 F.2d 517, certiorari denied 361 U.S. 897, 905, 80 S.Ct. 187, 4 L.Ed.2d 153, 181.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge,

being of the opinion that Dorsey, et al. should not be permitted to intervene, dissents from the foregoing order.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case came on for consideration on the original record and was argued by counsel.

Upon consideration whereof it is Ordered by the Court that the order of the District Court of May 3, 1960, denying the motions of appellants, petitioners for intervention in the District Court, to intervene, is set aside and the District Court is directed to grant the said motions to intervene subject, however, to-the conditions that the appellants, said petitioning intervenors in the District Court, are permitted to intervene by the participation of their counsel, limited in number as the District Court may prescribe, with respect to the filing of such pleadings and papers and the presentation of argument, oral or written, with respect to matters designed to accomplish henceforth the basic purposes of the Consent Decree of January 31, 1958, approved as modified in English v. Cunningham, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 269 F.2d 517, certiorari denied 361 U.S. 897, 905, 80 S.Ct. 187, 4 L.Ed.2d 153, 181.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge,

being of the opinion that Dorsey, et al. should not be permitted to intervene, dissents from the foregoing order.

James R. Hoffa v. Honorable F. Dickinson Letts, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Edwin D. Dorsey and Harry Bath, Intervenors. John F. English, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. Honorable F. Dickinson Letts, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Edward D. Dorsey and Harry Bath, Intervenors

282 F.2d 842 (D.C. Circuit, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 F.2d 842, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 359, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-d-dorsey-and-harry-bath-v-john-cunningham-cadc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack