Home/District of Columbia/Stanley Co. of America, Inc. v. McLaughlin

Stanley Co. of America, Inc. v. McLaughlin

195 F. Supp. 519, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5405
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMay 17, 1961
DocketCiv. A. No. 2863-60
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 195 F. Supp. 519 (Stanley Co. of America, Inc. v. McLaughlin) 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.

Bluebook
Stanley Co. of America, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 195 F. Supp. 519, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5405 (D.D.C. 1961).

Opinion

LEONARD P. WALSH, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the defendants’ “Motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment” and on plaintiffs’ “Counter-motion for summary judgment”. Oral argument was had, and memoranda of points and authorities filed on behalf of each of the parties.

By this action against the individual members of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and J. J. Ilgenfritz, Director, Department of Licenses and Inspections for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs seek an order requiring defendants to issue a permit to allow repairs and alterations to a structure owned by the plaintiff, Stanley Company of America, Inc., and occupied in part by the plaintiff, Earle Restaurant, Inc., described as Lot 39, Square 290, in the District of Columbia, and known [520]*520as premises 501 Thirteenth Street, N. W.

The plaintiff, Stanley Company of America, Inc., filed with the Government of the District of Columbia an application for a building permit for repairs and alterations to the entryway of the Earle Restaurant, together with the plans and specifications therefor. Plaintiffs allege that these plans and specifications complied in all respects with the applicable rules and regulations of the District of Columbia; that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia referred the application to the Commission of Fine Arts, which disapproved the application on September 21, 1959; that the Commissioners of the District of Columbia on August 24, 1960, rejected the Plaintiff’s application solely on the ground that the Commission of Fine Arts had disapproved it; that .the Commissioners of the District .of Columbia should not have referred the application to the Commission on Fine Arts for the reason that the subject property is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission of Fine Arts; and that the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and damage if the permit to repair and remodel the entrance to the premises here involved is not issued.

A permanent Commission of Fine Arts was created by Act of Congress, May 17, 1910, to be composed of seven well-qualified judges of the fine arts, whose duty was to advise “generally upon questions of art when required to do so by the President, or by any committee of either House of Congress.” 40 U.S.C.A. § 104. The Shipstead-Luce Act of May 16, 1930, 46 Stat. 366, gave to the Commission of Fine Arts the duty of approving or disapproving plans for the erection or alteration of buildings, the duty having been imposed upon Congress by the Constitution to exercise a reasonable degree of control over the architecture of private or semi-public buildings adjacent to public buildings and grounds of major importance.1

As noted by the Corporation Counsel, section 2 of the Act, Title 5, Section 411, D.C.Code, directs the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, in consultation with the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, to prepare plats defining the areas within which applications for building permits were to be submitted to the Commission on Fine Arts for its recommendations.2

[521]

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

Related

United Airlines, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania
385 F. Supp. 2d 343 (S.D. New York, 2005)
STATE EX REL. BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY v. Lawton
1974 OK 69 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1974)
Pikesville Home Builders, Inc. v. United States
160 Ct. Cl. 541 (Court of Claims, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
195 F. Supp. 519, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-co-of-america-inc-v-mclaughlin-dcd-1961.