Wiggins v. Young

D.C. Circuit

Wiggins v. Young

167 F.2d 761, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 397, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2497

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 26, 1948

DocketNo. 9756

StatusPublished

This text of 167 F.2d 761 (Wiggins v. Young) 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

Wiggins v. Young, 167 F.2d 761, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 397, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2497 (D.C. Cir. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order dismissing a complaint for an injunction to restrain the Board of Public Welfare of the District of Columbia from closing one of the child day care centers it has operated under general statutory authority to operate not more than 14. 60 Stat. 540, as amended, 60 Stat. 894; Pub.L. No. 123, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 61 Stat. 188; Pub.L. No. 237, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 61 Stat. 425. The Board’s decision is plainly within its discretion. We regret the resulting hardship to the appellants, but we have no authority to substitute our discretion for that of the Board and no reason to assume that our discretion, if exercised, would lead to a different result.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from an order dismissing a complaint for an injunction to restrain the Board of Public Welfare of the District of Columbia from closing one of the child day care centers it has operated under general statutory authority to operate not more than 14. 60 Stat. 540, as amended, 60 Stat. 894; Pub.L. No. 123, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 61 Stat. 188; Pub.L. No. 237, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 61 Stat. 425. The Board’s decision is plainly within its discretion. We regret the resulting hardship to the appellants, but we have no authority to substitute our discretion for that of the Board and no reason to assume that our discretion, if exercised, would lead to a different result.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 F.2d 761, 83 U.S. App. D.C. 397, 1948 U.S. App. LEXIS 2497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiggins-v-young-cadc-1948.