John Cunningham v. Martin F. O'donoghue, Chairman of the Board of Monitors, and Lawrence T. Smith, as Monitor

D.C. Circuit

John Cunningham v. Martin F. O'donoghue, Chairman of the Board of Monitors, and Lawrence T. Smith, as Monitor

278 F.2d 274, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 394, 45 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3157, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4860

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 1960

Docket15483

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 F.2d 274 (John Cunningham v. Martin F. O'donoghue, Chairman of the Board of Monitors, and Lawrence T. Smith, as Monitor) 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

John Cunningham v. Martin F. O'donoghue, Chairman of the Board of Monitors, and Lawrence T. Smith, as Monitor, 278 F.2d 274, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 394, 45 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3157, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4860 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order of the District Court denying the motion filed there by appellant to remove Martin F. O’Donoghue as Chairman of the Board of Monitors and Lawrence T. Smith as a Monitor. Upon consideration of the record made in the District Court we are of the view that the claim of conflict of interests, made the basis for the motion, did not require the court as matter of law to hold that either Mr. O’Donoghue or Mr. Smith was disqualified to act under the court’s appointment, and we are also of the view that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Cf. English v. Cunningham, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 269 F.2d 517, 526.

Affirmed

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

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order of the District Court denying the motion filed there by appellant to remove Martin F. O’Donoghue as Chairman of the Board of Monitors and Lawrence T. Smith as a Monitor. Upon consideration of the record made in the District Court we are of the view that the claim of conflict of interests, made the basis for the motion, did not require the court as matter of law to hold that either Mr. O’Donoghue or Mr. Smith was disqualified to act under the court’s appointment, and we are also of the view that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Cf. English v. Cunningham, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 70, 269 F.2d 517, 526.

Affirmed

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 F.2d 274, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 394, 45 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3157, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 4860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-cunningham-v-martin-f-odonoghue-chairman-of-the-board-of-monitors-cadc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack