Samuel Herman v. Whitney Gillilland, Members of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

D.C. Circuit

Samuel Herman v. Whitney Gillilland, Members of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

218 F.2d 852

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 1955

Docket12279_1

StatusPublished

This text of 218 F.2d 852 (Samuel Herman v. Whitney Gillilland, Members of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission) 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

Samuel Herman v. Whitney Gillilland, Members of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 218 F.2d 852 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The District Court, in a prior suit for judicial review of an administrative decision, granted summary judgment against plaintiff-appellant, and we affirmed. Herman v. Dulles, 1953, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 303, 205 F.2d 715, affirming Herman v. Acheson, D.C.1952, 108 F.Supp. 723. The present suit is like the former one, but alleges that the plaintiff has newly-discovered evidence of bias and prejudice on the part of those who made the original administrative decision adverse to him (viz., the former membership of the International Claims Commission). The District Court again granted summary judgment. We again affirm. The issue of bias and prejudice was raised in appellant’s first action, was urged here in his brief on appeal, and was determined against him. 1 The matter is res judicata. Calvin v. Calvin, 1954, 94 U.S.App.D.C. -, 214 F.2d 226, 228.

Affirmed.

1

. We said that the evidence against appelhint was sufficient, and that the Commission took action “ ‘after fair investigation, with such a notice, hearing and opportunity to answer * * * as would constitute due process.’ ” 205 F.2d at page 717.

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

PER CURIAM.

The District Court, in a prior suit for judicial review of an administrative decision, granted summary judgment against plaintiff-appellant, and we affirmed. Herman v. Dulles, 1953, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 303, 205 F.2d 715, affirming Herman v. Acheson, D.C.1952, 108 F.Supp. 723. The present suit is like the former one, but alleges that the plaintiff has newly-discovered evidence of bias and prejudice on the part of those who made the original administrative decision adverse to him (viz., the former membership of the International Claims Commission). The District Court again granted summary judgment. We again affirm. The issue of bias and prejudice was raised in appellant’s first action, was urged here in his brief on appeal, and was determined against him. 1 The matter is res judicata. Calvin v. Calvin, 1954, 94 U.S.App.D.C. -, 214 F.2d 226, 228.

Affirmed.

1

. We said that the evidence against appelhint was sufficient, and that the Commission took action “ ‘after fair investigation, with such a notice, hearing and opportunity to answer * * * as would constitute due process.’ ” 205 F.2d at page 717.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F.2d 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-herman-v-whitney-gillilland-members-of-the-foreign-claims-cadc-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack