U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1950

Johnson, Secretary of National Defense v. Nelson. Johnson, Secretary of National Defense v. Reeves

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 15, 1950 · Edgerton, Miller, Bazelon

180 F.2d 386 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Eugene T. Maher, attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, with whom Assistant Attorney General H. G. Morison and Messrs. George Morris Fay, United States Attorney, Washington, D. C., and Edward H. Hickey, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, were on the brief, for appellants. Mr. Ross O’Donoghue, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D C., also entered an appearance for appellants., Mr. Claude L. Dawson, Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision. The 14 that cite it most often are listed here.

Jeanne M. Murray v. Robert L. Kunzig, Administrator, General Services (D.C. Cir. 1972)
Lodge 1858, American Federation of Government Employees v. Thomas O. Paine, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (D.C. Cir. 1970)
William J. Fitzpatrick v. Philip W. Snyder, Commander, Boston Naval Shipyard (1st Cir. 1955)
May v. Glore (District Court, E.D. New York 1955)
Baskin v. Tennessee Valley Authority (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1974)
Jose T. Acfalle v. United States (9th Cir. 1971)
Hills v. Eisenhart (9th Cir. 1958)
Hills v. Eisenhart (9th Cir. 1958)
Young v. Higley (D.C. Cir. 1955)
De Busk v. Harvin (5th Cir. 1954)
Green v. Baughman. Green v. Young (D.C. Cir. 1954)
Fitzpatrick v. Snyder (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1954)
Holland Furnace Co. v. Purcell (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1954)
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Langham (6th Cir. 1953)

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellees, war veterans employed by the Navy Department, sue to get back supervisory positions from which they were demoted during a reduction in force. They maintain that since their efficiency ratings were good or better, their veterans’ preference rights were violated when they were demoted-while non-veterans with equal ratings were not. 37 Stat. 413, § 4, formerly 5 U.S.C.A. § 648; 58 Stat. 387, § 2, 58 Stat. 390, § 12, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 851, 861. Appellants rely largely on 58 Stat. 390, § 14, 5 U.S.C.A. § 863. It appears from appellees’ complaints that they have not exhausted their statutory rights of appeal to the Civil Service Commission. Apparently their appeals to the Commission were pending when they brought these suits and the Commission withheld decision in view of the suits.

We think the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to appellees. In Wettre v. Hague, 168 F.2d 825, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit based a different conclusion on Order of Railway Conductors v. Pitney, 326 U.S. 561, 566, 66 S.Ct. 322, 90 L.Ed. 318, and Hilton v. Sullivan, 334 U.S. 323, 68 S.Ct. 1020, 92 L.Ed. 1416. But the Hilton case involved dismissal and this case involves demotion. The fact that administrative action is probably erroneous does not create an exception to the rule that administrative processes must be exhausted before judicial relief is sought. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Otis & Co., 338 U.S. 843, 70 S.Ct. 89, rehearing denied, 338 U.S. 888, 70 S.Ct. 187.

Reversed.

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