Leland A. Chappelle v. Dudley C. Sharp, Secretary of the Department of the Air Force

D.C. Circuit

Leland A. Chappelle v. Dudley C. Sharp, Secretary of the Department of the Air Force

301 F.2d 506

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 1962

Docket16310

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 301 F.2d 506 (Leland A. Chappelle v. Dudley C. Sharp, Secretary of the Department of the Air Force) 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

Leland A. Chappelle v. Dudley C. Sharp, Secretary of the Department of the Air Force, 301 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil action in which the plaintiff sought reinstatement in a Civil Service position in Federal Government employ, expungement from the employment records of all references to his removal, and back pay for the period of his unemployment. His appeal to the Civil Service Commission was adversely decided on August 1, 1957. He filed his complaint June 17, 1960. This was thirty-four and one-half months after the final administrative action on his removal. The defendant officials moved to dismiss, filing in support an affidavit reciting facts which upon their face posed the problem of laches. Plaintiff filed an opposition, in which he referred to the defendants’ “attempting to raise the issue of laches”. The trial court entered summary judgment.

The plaintiff’s case was barred by laches. The law on the point was established by United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane 1 in 1919 and has consistently been applied by the federal courts in many cases since then. 2 *****8 The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

1

. 249 U.S. 367, 372, 39 S.Ct. 293, 63 L.Ed. 650.

2

. E. g., Norris v. United States, 257 U.S. 77, 42 S.Ct. 9, 66 L.Ed. 136 (1921); Nicholas v. United States, 257 U.S. 71, 42 S.Ct. 7, 66 L.Ed. 133 (1921); Jones v. Summerfield, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 140, 265 F.2d 124 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 841, 80 S.Ct. 93, 4 L.Ed.2d 80 (1959); Drown v. Higley, 100 U.S.App. D.C. 326, 244 F.2d 774 (D.C.Cir.1957); O’Connor v. Summerfield, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 249, 239 F.2d 69 (D.C.Cir.1956); Haas v. Overholser, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 223 F.2d 314 (D.C.Cir.1955); Sawyer v. Stevens, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 221 F.2d 822 (D.C.Cir.1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 959, 75 S.Ct. 450, 99 L.Ed. 748 (1955); Davis v. Summerfield, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 219 F.2d 510 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 965, 75 S.Ct. 898, 99 L.Ed. 1286 (1955); Grasse v. Snyder, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 192 F.2d 35 (D.C.Cir.1951); Caswell v. Morgenthau, 69 App.D.C. 15, 98 F.2d 296 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 596, 59 S.Ct. 81, 83 L.Ed. 378 (1938).

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil action in which the plaintiff sought reinstatement in a Civil Service position in Federal Government employ, expungement from the employment records of all references to his removal, and back pay for the period of his unemployment. His appeal to the Civil Service Commission was adversely decided on August 1, 1957. He filed his complaint June 17, 1960. This was thirty-four and one-half months after the final administrative action on his removal. The defendant officials moved to dismiss, filing in support an affidavit reciting facts which upon their face posed the problem of laches. Plaintiff filed an opposition, in which he referred to the defendants’ “attempting to raise the issue of laches”. The trial court entered summary judgment.

The plaintiff’s case was barred by laches. The law on the point was established by United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane 1 in 1919 and has consistently been applied by the federal courts in many cases since then. 2 *****8 The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

1

. 249 U.S. 367, 372, 39 S.Ct. 293, 63 L.Ed. 650.

2

. E. g., Norris v. United States, 257 U.S. 77, 42 S.Ct. 9, 66 L.Ed. 136 (1921); Nicholas v. United States, 257 U.S. 71, 42 S.Ct. 7, 66 L.Ed. 133 (1921); Jones v. Summerfield, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 140, 265 F.2d 124 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 841, 80 S.Ct. 93, 4 L.Ed.2d 80 (1959); Drown v. Higley, 100 U.S.App. D.C. 326, 244 F.2d 774 (D.C.Cir.1957); O’Connor v. Summerfield, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 249, 239 F.2d 69 (D.C.Cir.1956); Haas v. Overholser, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 223 F.2d 314 (D.C.Cir.1955); Sawyer v. Stevens, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 221 F.2d 822 (D.C.Cir.1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 959, 75 S.Ct. 450, 99 L.Ed. 748 (1955); Davis v. Summerfield, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 219 F.2d 510 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 965, 75 S.Ct. 898, 99 L.Ed. 1286 (1955); Grasse v. Snyder, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 192 F.2d 35 (D.C.Cir.1951); Caswell v. Morgenthau, 69 App.D.C. 15, 98 F.2d 296 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 596, 59 S.Ct. 81, 83 L.Ed. 378 (1938).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 F.2d 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leland-a-chappelle-v-dudley-c-sharp-secretary-of-the-department-of-the-cadc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack