Robert Fritz v. Director of Veterans Administration, Etc.

Ninth Circuit

Robert Fritz v. Director of Veterans Administration, Etc.

427 F.2d 154, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9140

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1970

Docket23957_1

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 427 F.2d 154 (Robert Fritz v. Director of Veterans Administration, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert Fritz v. Director of Veterans Administration, Etc., 427 F.2d 154, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9140 (9th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We have carefully considered the appellant’s brief and the clarification of appellant’s position presented to us by him at oral argument, acting in pro. per. Appellant has had a full opportunity to present his claims to the District Court and to us. However, neither the District Court nor this court has been authorized *155 by any Act of Congress to decide the merits of appellant’s claim. On the contrary, Congress, by the enactment of 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) has expressly deprived the courts of any jurisdiction to do so. Under the circumstances, the District Court had no choice; the law required it to dismiss the action. The same law requires us to affirm the judgment. No possible benefit can come to appellant by the continuance of this litigation. It should now be brought to a close. For the same reason, appellant’s motion, filed October 27, 1969, must be denied.

The judgment is affirmed. The motion is denied.

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

PER CURIAM:

We have carefully considered the appellant’s brief and the clarification of appellant’s position presented to us by him at oral argument, acting in pro. per. Appellant has had a full opportunity to present his claims to the District Court and to us. However, neither the District Court nor this court has been authorized *155 by any Act of Congress to decide the merits of appellant’s claim. On the contrary, Congress, by the enactment of 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) has expressly deprived the courts of any jurisdiction to do so. Under the circumstances, the District Court had no choice; the law required it to dismiss the action. The same law requires us to affirm the judgment. No possible benefit can come to appellant by the continuance of this litigation. It should now be brought to a close. For the same reason, appellant’s motion, filed October 27, 1969, must be denied.

The judgment is affirmed. The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

427 F.2d 154, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-fritz-v-director-of-veterans-administration-etc-ca9-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack