U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1955

Young v. Higley

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 3, 1955

220 F.2d 487; 95 U.S. App. D.C. 122; 1955 U.S. App. LEXIS 3381 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Keith L. Seegmiller, Washington, D. C., for appellants., Mr. Andrew P. Vance, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Samuel D. Slade, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., was on the brief for appellees. Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Paul A. Sweeney, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

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

Lodge 1858, American Federation of Government Employees v. Thomas O. Paine, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (D.C. Cir. 1970)
Jeanne M. Murray v. Robert L. Kunzig, Administrator, General Services (D.C. Cir. 1972)
Ronald Wallace v. James T. Lynn, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (D.C. Cir. 1974)
American Federation of Government Employees v. Resor (District Court, District of Columbia 1974)
William B. Ogden v. Eugene M. Zuckert, Secretary of the Air Force (D.C. Cir. 1961)
Hills v. Eisenhart (9th Cir. 1958)
Burns v. Mccrary (2d Cir. 1956)
Burns v. McCrary (2d Cir. 1956)
Gilmore v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia (D.C. 1997)
American Federation of Government Employees v. Martin R. Hoffman, Secretary of the Army (D.C. Cir. 1976)
John Ogden v. Department Of Transportation (6th Cir. 1970)
Ogden v. Department of Transportation (6th Cir. 1970)
Marshall v. Fleming (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1960)
Hills v. Eisenhart (9th Cir. 1958)
May v. Glore (District Court, E.D. New York 1955)

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were removed, in a reduction in force, from employment in the United States Veterans’ Administration. They contend their rights under the Veterans’ Preference Act [of 1944, 5 U.S.C.A. § 851 et seq.] were clearly violated. We do not reach that question.

Appellants failed to exercise, within the time allowed by the rules, their right of appeal to the Civil Service Commission from the decision of its Regional Office upholding the action of the Veterans’ Administration. “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.” Johnson v. Nelson, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 98, 180 F.2d 386, certiorari denied 339 U.S. 957, 70 S.Ct. 980, 94 L.Ed. 1368. As that case shows, we *488disagree with the view that administrative remedies need not be exhausted if the administrative action complained of is clearly erroneous. Cf. Wettre v. Hague, 1 Cir., 168 F.2d 825.

Affirmed.

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