Waterman v. Nelson

177 F.2d 965, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3317
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided November 17, 1949·No. No. 22, Docket 21349·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The claim against the defendant, Rossell, is only for damages as he has no authority to reinstate the plaintiff in the Veterans Administration; and, as a claim for damages, it is invalid under our recent decision-in Gregoire v. Biddle, 2 Cir., 177 F.2d 579. Rossell appeared only for himself, -and none of the other defendants have been served, nor have they appeared, or asked for any relief. The action was, however, commenced against all the defendants by the filing of the complaint—Rule 3— and we know of nothing in the general rules which would justify the district court, sua sponte, in dismissing it. It is true that Rule 30 of the General Rules for the [966] Southern District of New York, which we quote in the margin,

Footnotes

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

Waterman v. Nelson, 177 F.2d 965, 1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3317 (2d Cir. 1949).

177 F.2d 965 (Waterman v. Nelson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mrs. Frances B. Chafin v. Dr. Harry D. Pratt
358 F.2d 349 (Fifth Circuit, 1966)
Gamage v. Peal
217 F. Supp. 384 (N.D. California, 1962)
Lyford v. Carter
274 F.2d 815 (Second Circuit, 1960)
De Busk v. Harvin
212 F.2d 143 (Fifth Circuit, 1954)
Waterman v. Nelson
195 F.2d 523 (Second Circuit, 1952)
Fredericks v. Rossell
95 F. Supp. 754 (S.D. New York, 1950)