Wunderle v. Kimball, Secretary, Department of Navy of United States

D.C. Circuit

Wunderle v. Kimball, Secretary, Department of Navy of United States

201 F.2d 707, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 394, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2412

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 31, 1952

Docket11502_1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 201 F.2d 707 (Wunderle v. Kimball, Secretary, Department of Navy of United States) 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

Wunderle v. Kimball, Secretary, Department of Navy of United States, 201 F.2d 707, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 394, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2412 (D.C. Cir. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was removed from employment in the classified civil service of the United States on July 11, 1941. At her request she was furnished a brief statement which purported to inform her of the reasons for her removal. Repeatedly thereafter she wrote various officials in the Navy Department, seeking reinstatement. On October 12, 1942, she was advised by the Assistant Secretary that the entire file had been reviewed and no reason found to warrant a change in the action taken. She continued, by letters addressed to various officials in the Navy Department and other officials, to seek reinstatement. She filed the present action January 23, 1952. The District Court was of opinion, upon the authority of Grasse v. Snyder, 1 that the action was barred by laches. We agree with that conclusion.

Affirmed.

1

. 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 192 F.2d 35. To the same effect is Baxter v. Pace, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 392, 193 F.2d 20.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was removed from employment in the classified civil service of the United States on July 11, 1941. At her request she was furnished a brief statement which purported to inform her of the reasons for her removal. Repeatedly thereafter she wrote various officials in the Navy Department, seeking reinstatement. On October 12, 1942, she was advised by the Assistant Secretary that the entire file had been reviewed and no reason found to warrant a change in the action taken. She continued, by letters addressed to various officials in the Navy Department and other officials, to seek reinstatement. She filed the present action January 23, 1952. The District Court was of opinion, upon the authority of Grasse v. Snyder, 1 that the action was barred by laches. We agree with that conclusion.

Affirmed.

1

. 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 192 F.2d 35. To the same effect is Baxter v. Pace, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 392, 193 F.2d 20.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 F.2d 707, 91 U.S. App. D.C. 394, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wunderle-v-kimball-secretary-department-of-navy-of-united-states-cadc-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack