Fox v. Ickes

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Fox v. Ickes

2 D.C. 26

District of Columbia Court of Appeals·Decided July 1, 1935·No. Equity No. 57738·Published

Opinion

BAILEY, J.

It appears from the proposed amended bills that the orders made by the defendant are not authorized by Congress, and had they been so authorized, would have deprived the plaintiffs of vested rights. The suits are not brought against the United States but to set aside unauthorized acts of the defendant in cases in which he has no discretionary powers, and is acting arbitrarily.

The motions for .leave to file the amended bills will be granted.

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

BAILEY, J.

It appears from the proposed amended bills that the orders made by the defendant are not authorized by Congress, and had they been so authorized, would have deprived the plaintiffs of vested rights. The suits are not brought against the United States but to set aside unauthorized acts of the defendant in cases in which he has no discretionary powers, and is acting arbitrarily.

The motions for .leave to file the amended bills will be granted.

Fox v. Ickes, 2 D.C. 26 (D.C. 1935).

Pincite

2 D.C. 26 (Fox v. Ickes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.