U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1952

Campbell v. Deviny, Public Printer

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided January 24, 1952 · Clark, Prettyman, Proctor

194 F.2d 881; 90 U.S. App. D.C. 176; 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2857 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Warren E. Miller, Washington, D. C., with whom David S. Allshouse, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellant., E. Leo Backus, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. H. G. Morison, George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, Washington, D. C., and Edward H. Hickey, Sp. Asst, to the Atty. Gen., were on the brief, for appellees. Charles M. Irelan, Washington, D. C, who was ap*pointed U. S. Atty. subsequent h> the argument in this case, also entered an appearance for appellees., John C. Williamson, Washington, D. Gr filed a brief on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States a* amicus curiae, urging reversal., Herbert J. Jacobi, Washington, D. G, filed a brief on behalf of the American Legion as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Thomas Henry Carter v. United States of America (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Dr. Harold D. Kletschka v. William J. Driver, Individually and as Administrator of the Veterans Administration (2d Cir. 1969)
Gyakum v. Seaton (District Court, District of Columbia 1957)
Glasser v. Government of the Virgin Islands (District Court, Virgin Islands 1994)
Powell v. Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture (D.C. Cir. 1952)

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

PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was employed at the Government Printing Office as an “Estimator-Jacket Preparer”, Grade CAF-7, at an annual salary of $3,000. From January 29, 1943, to January 23, 1946, he was -in the military service, being honorably discharged on the latter date. During his absence there was a reorganization of his Division in the Office. He was returned to duty as an Estimator and Specification Writer, with a salary of $3,640. Subsequent adjustments brought his salary to $4,900 and his designation to “Planner”. He brought a civil action in the District Court, alleging that the position which he had held when he entered military service had, during his absence, been reallocated, 1 and praying for a writ of mandamus to' require the appellee Public Printer and members of the Civil Service Commission to restore him to his former position as thus reallocated. A motion for summary judgment, with supporting affidavits, was filed by the defendants, and a cross-motion for summary judgment upon the question of the court’s jurisdiction, with a supporting affidavit, was filed by Campbell. The District Court rendered judgment for the defendants and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, . an opinion being filed by Judge Letts. 2 We agree with that opinion, and upon that basis the judgment will be Affirmed.

. Affidavits showed his claim to be that the position as reallocated was a Grade CAF-11 position, salary $3,800. The defendant officials denied that the claimed position was comparable to the position originally held by Campbell.

. Campbell v. Deviny, D.C.D.O.1949, 81 P.Supp. 657.

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