T. V. Engineers, Inc. v. Bogan

D.C. Circuit

T. V. Engineers, Inc. v. Bogan

274 F.2d 93, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 31, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 1959

DocketNos. 15104, 15110, 15180

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 F.2d 93 (T. V. Engineers, Inc. v. Bogan) 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

T. V. Engineers, Inc. v. Bogan, 274 F.2d 93, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 31, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918 (D.C. Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These are three appeals arising out of two civil actions in the District Court. Our appellant sought declaratory judgments against officials of the District of Columbia government, alleging that those officials threatened criminal actions (one of which was later actually brought) against it for its manner of using the word “Engineers” in its corporate name, and in its business, in claimed violation of the Professional Engineers’ Registration Act.¹ It sought an adjudication of the dispute as to the use of the name, a declaration that its use of the name was legal, and an injunction against criminal prosecution. The District Court dismissed one suit, which was against five official defendants, and granted summary judgment in the other suit in favor [94]*94of the defendants, who were five other officials. Appellant now concedes the validity of the action of the court in No. 15110, which dealt with the preliminary injunction. We find no abuse of discretion in the other actions taken by the tidal court. Of course we are not to be considered as intimating any expression of opinion on any issue which may come before the Municipal Court or elsewhere in respect to the merits of the ease.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These are three appeals arising out of two civil actions in the District Court. Our appellant sought declaratory judgments against officials of the District of Columbia government, alleging that those officials threatened criminal actions (one of which was later actually brought) against it for its manner of using the word “Engineers” in its corporate name, and in its business, in claimed violation of the Professional Engineers’ Registration Act.¹ It sought an adjudication of the dispute as to the use of the name, a declaration that its use of the name was legal, and an injunction against criminal prosecution. The District Court dismissed one suit, which was against five official defendants, and granted summary judgment in the other suit in favor [94]*94of the defendants, who were five other officials. Appellant now concedes the validity of the action of the court in No. 15110, which dealt with the preliminary injunction. We find no abuse of discretion in the other actions taken by the tidal court. Of course we are not to be considered as intimating any expression of opinion on any issue which may come before the Municipal Court or elsewhere in respect to the merits of the ease.

Affirmed.

T. v. Engineers, Inc. v. G. Warren Bogan, Chairman, Constituting the District of Columbia Board of Registration for Professional Engineers, T. v. Engineers, Inc. v. Alfred Goldstein, Superintendent of Corporations, District of Columbia, T. v. Engineers, Inc. v. Alfred Goldstein, Superintendent of Corporations, District of Columbia

274 F.2d 93 (D.C. Circuit, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 F.2d 93, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 31, 1959 U.S. App. LEXIS 2918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-v-engineers-inc-v-bogan-cadc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack