Hazel T. Ellis v. Frederick H. Mueller, Acting Secretary of Commerce

D.C. Circuit

Hazel T. Ellis v. Frederick H. Mueller, Acting Secretary of Commerce

280 F.2d 722, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 174, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4182

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 1960

Docket15599_1

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 280 F.2d 722 (Hazel T. Ellis v. Frederick H. Mueller, Acting Secretary of Commerce) 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

Hazel T. Ellis v. Frederick H. Mueller, Acting Secretary of Commerce, 280 F.2d 722, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 174, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4182 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil service case, in which plaintiff-appellant’s dismissal was the subject of an extensive hearing before the Civil Service Commission under the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, 5 U.S.C.A. § 863, and was upheld by that body. Suit for a declaratory judgment and restoration of status was thereafter brought in the District Court. That court granted the appellees’ (defendants’) motion for summary judgment.

The function of the courts in cases like this is not to review the merits of a dismissal, but to determine whether the employee was accorded his statutory and procedural rights. See Hargett v. Sum-merfield, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29. Such rights were fully accorded here.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil service case, in which plaintiff-appellant’s dismissal was the subject of an extensive hearing before the Civil Service Commission under the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, 5 U.S.C.A. § 863, and was upheld by that body. Suit for a declaratory judgment and restoration of status was thereafter brought in the District Court. That court granted the appellees’ (defendants’) motion for summary judgment.

The function of the courts in cases like this is not to review the merits of a dismissal, but to determine whether the employee was accorded his statutory and procedural rights. See Hargett v. Sum-merfield, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29. Such rights were fully accorded here.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 F.2d 722, 108 U.S. App. D.C. 174, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazel-t-ellis-v-frederick-h-mueller-acting-secretary-of-commerce-cadc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack