George E. v. Stone v. Board of Examiners and Registrars of Architects of the District of Columbia

D.C. Circuit

George E. v. Stone v. Board of Examiners and Registrars of Architects of the District of Columbia

249 F.2d 104

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 6, 1957

Docket13609

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 F.2d 104 (George E. v. Stone v. Board of Examiners and Registrars of Architects of the District of Columbia) 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

George E. v. Stone v. Board of Examiners and Registrars of Architects of the District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 104 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the petition for allowance of an appeal from the judgment of the Municipal Court of Appeals entered herein October 23, 1956, of petitioner’s brief, of respondent’s brief, of petitioner’s reply, and of the decision and order of the Board of Examiners and Registrars of Architects entered herein June 21, 1956, contained in the transcript of record; and it appearing that, although the Board’s sole conclusion was that petitioner “did violate Section 27(a) of the Architect’s Registration Act” (§ 2-1027(a), D.C.Code, 1951 ed.), which permits revocation of a certificate of registration “in case it is shown that the certificate was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation,” the Board nevertheless failed to find that the instant certificate was so obtained; it is

Ordered by the Court that an appeal from said judgment of the Municipal Court of Appeals be, and it is hereby, allowed.

It is further ordered by the Court that the judgment and order of the Municipal Court of Appeals entered herein October 23, 1956, be, and it is hereby, vacated and that this case be, and it is hereby, remanded to the Municipal Court of Appeals with directions to remand this case to said Board with directions to vacate its decision and order of June 21,1956, herein, and to dismiss these proceedings unless it can and does find, from the evidence of record, that the actual obtaining of the instant certificate was due to fraud or misrepresentation.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the petition for allowance of an appeal from the judgment of the Municipal Court of Appeals entered herein October 23, 1956, of petitioner’s brief, of respondent’s brief, of petitioner’s reply, and of the decision and order of the Board of Examiners and Registrars of Architects entered herein June 21, 1956, contained in the transcript of record; and it appearing that, although the Board’s sole conclusion was that petitioner “did violate Section 27(a) of the Architect’s Registration Act” (§ 2-1027(a), D.C.Code, 1951 ed.), which permits revocation of a certificate of registration “in case it is shown that the certificate was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation,” the Board nevertheless failed to find that the instant certificate was so obtained; it is

Ordered by the Court that an appeal from said judgment of the Municipal Court of Appeals be, and it is hereby, allowed.

It is further ordered by the Court that the judgment and order of the Municipal Court of Appeals entered herein October 23, 1956, be, and it is hereby, vacated and that this case be, and it is hereby, remanded to the Municipal Court of Appeals with directions to remand this case to said Board with directions to vacate its decision and order of June 21,1956, herein, and to dismiss these proceedings unless it can and does find, from the evidence of record, that the actual obtaining of the instant certificate was due to fraud or misrepresentation.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 F.2d 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-e-v-stone-v-board-of-examiners-and-registrars-of-architects-of-cadc-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack