Mansfield v. Weinberger
This text of 398 F. Supp. 964 (Mansfield v. Weinberger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
In light of the Supreme Court decision in Weinberger v. Salfi,-U.S.-, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975), and of the entire record herein, we conclude, sua sponte, that since no substan[965]*965tial constitutional question is presented a three-judge district court is not required to hear and determine this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2282 (1970). See Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 715, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794 (1962); Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire. & E. v. Certain Carriers, Etc., 118 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 331 F.2d 1020, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 918, 84 S.Ct. 1181, 12 L.Ed.2d 187 (1964). Accordingly, the three-judge district court heretofore convened is hereby dissolved. See Weinberger v. Salfi, supra; MTM, Inc. v. Baxley, 420 U.S. 799, 95 S.Ct. 1278, 43 L.Ed.2d 636 (1975); Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90, 95 S.Ct. 289, 42 L.Ed.2d 249 (1974); Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Comm’n, 393 U.S. 83, 89 S.Ct. 60, 21 L.Ed.2d 215 (1968); Wilson v. Port Lavaca, 391 U.S. 352, 88 S.Ct. 1502, 20 L.Ed.2d 636 (1968).
So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
398 F. Supp. 964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mansfield-v-weinberger-dcd-1975.