Wilson v. Blount

Tenth Circuit

Wilson v. Blount

422 F.2d 866

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 1970

DocketNo. 127-69

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 422 F.2d 866 (Wilson v. Blount) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Blount, 422 F.2d 866 (10th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a Judgment of the District Court of Kansas sustaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment and overruling plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The critical question is whether a blind person operating a vending stand in the Federal Court House in Kansas City, Kansas, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 107 et seq. (commonly known as the Randolph-Sheppard Act) is entitled to enjoin the Postmaster General from removing vending machines located in another federal building and from which the blind person receives income.

Judge Templar sustained subject matter jurisdiction and held that removal of the vending machines did not violate any of plaintiffs’ rights vested under 20 U.S.C. Section 107. We have examined the records and briefs and conclude that the judgment of the trial court is clearly right and should be affirmed for the reasons stated in Judge Templar’s comprehensive Memorandum of Decision, 309 F.Supp. 263.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a Judgment of the District Court of Kansas sustaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment and overruling plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The critical question is whether a blind person operating a vending stand in the Federal Court House in Kansas City, Kansas, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 107 et seq. (commonly known as the Randolph-Sheppard Act) is entitled to enjoin the Postmaster General from removing vending machines located in another federal building and from which the blind person receives income.

Judge Templar sustained subject matter jurisdiction and held that removal of the vending machines did not violate any of plaintiffs’ rights vested under 20 U.S.C. Section 107. We have examined the records and briefs and conclude that the judgment of the trial court is clearly right and should be affirmed for the reasons stated in Judge Templar’s comprehensive Memorandum of Decision, 309 F.Supp. 263.

Judgment affirmed.

Adam Wilson v. Winton M. Blount, Postmaster General of the United States,defendants-Appellees, and State Board of Social Welfare, Division of Servicesfor the Blind, Joe Loya and State Board of Social Welfare, Division of Services for Theblind v. Winton M. Blount, Postmaster General of the United States,defendants-Appellees

422 F.2d 866 (Tenth Circuit, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 F.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-blount-ca10-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack