Fortier v. Hobby

262 F.2d 924
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJanuary 8, 1959
DocketNos. 14195-14197
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 262 F.2d 924 (Fortier v. Hobby) 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
Fortier v. Hobby, 262 F.2d 924 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These are suits against certain officials of the United States Government and the Government of the District of Columbia, named and sued as individuals, seeking damages for acts performed in their official capacities in relation to appellant’s applications for various forms of relief, including vocational rehabilitation.1 The District Court, after reviewing the pleadings, affidavits filed by defendants-appellees, and the testimony given by plaintiff-appellant on deposition, granted summary judgment for appellees. We agree with the District Court that there was no genuine issue of material fact, and that on the facts adduced appellees are protected by the doctrine of official immunity against liability for damages. Summary judgment was therefore proper. Cooper v. O’Connor, 69 App.D.C. 100, 99 F.2d 135, 118 A.L.R. 1440, certiorari denied 1938, 305 U.S. 643, 59 S.Ct. 146, 83 L.Ed. 414; Laughlin v. Rosenman, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 164, 163 F.2d 838; Taylor v. Glotfelty, 6 Cir., 1952, 201 F.2d 51; Yaselli v. Goff, 2 Cir., 1926, 12 F.2d 396, 56 A.L.R. 239, affirmed 1927, 275 U.S. 503, 48 S.Ct. 155, 72 L.Ed. 395.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 F.2d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortier-v-hobby-cadc-1959.