Mary Louise Nozet v. District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation

D.C. Circuit

Mary Louise Nozet v. District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation

300 F.2d 735, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 67, 112 U.S. App. D.C. 143, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5839

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 1962

Docket16380_1

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 300 F.2d 735 (Mary Louise Nozet v. District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation) 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

Mary Louise Nozet v. District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation, 300 F.2d 735, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 67, 112 U.S. App. D.C. 143, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5839 (D.C. Cir. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a former mental patient, alleges in her complaint that appellee acted illegally in proceedings which resulted in the sale of her property by a court-appointed committee. The record contains a number of documents including an order of commitment, an order appointing a guardian ad litem, an order appointing a committee, the committee’s petition for authority to sell assets, an order authorizing the sale, an order of restoration of legal status, and an order approving the committee’s account. Thus it plainly appears that appellant’s *736 property was sold by a duly appointed officer of the District Court, as authorized by statute and with the court’s approval.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court granting appellee’s motion to dismiss the complaint. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appropriate motion would have been one for summary judgment. The case is therefore remanded to the District Court with directions to enter judgment pursuant to Rule 12(b) and Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A.

Remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, a former mental patient, alleges in her complaint that appellee acted illegally in proceedings which resulted in the sale of her property by a court-appointed committee. The record contains a number of documents including an order of commitment, an order appointing a guardian ad litem, an order appointing a committee, the committee’s petition for authority to sell assets, an order authorizing the sale, an order of restoration of legal status, and an order approving the committee’s account. Thus it plainly appears that appellant’s *736 property was sold by a duly appointed officer of the District Court, as authorized by statute and with the court’s approval.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court granting appellee’s motion to dismiss the complaint. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The appropriate motion would have been one for summary judgment. The case is therefore remanded to the District Court with directions to enter judgment pursuant to Rule 12(b) and Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 F.2d 735, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 67, 112 U.S. App. D.C. 143, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 5839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mary-louise-nozet-v-district-of-columbia-a-municipal-corporation-cadc-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack