U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1941

Gilbert v. Ickes

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided August 4, 1941 · Edger, Groner, Rutledge, Ton

123 F.2d 917; 74 App. D.C. 327; 1941 U.S. App. LEXIS 2847 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Daniel J. Hanlon, of Washington, D. C., and Wilbur E. Dow, Jr., of New York City, of the Bar of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, for appellant., Nathan R. Margold, Sol., Leland O. Graham and David M. Hudson, Asst. Sol., Department of the Interior, W. Robert Koerner, of the Bar of Minnesota, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, and Vernon L. Wilkinson, Department of Justice, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

City of Dallas, Texas v. Rentzel (5th Cir. 1949)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

RUTLEDGE, Associate Justice.

The appeal is from an order dismissing appellant’s suit upon allegations identical in all substantial and material respects with those made in the complaint in Dow v. Ickes and Stimson,-App.D.C.-, 123 F.2d 909, decided this day. The issues presented by the two cases are identical and the results must be the same. For the reasons which have been stated in the opinion which has been rendered in Dow v. Ickes and Stimson, the orders are affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.