U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1961

George Toregas v. Helen L. Susser, A. R. Seelye

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided April 13, 1961 · Fahy, Bastían, Burger

290 F.2d 368; 110 U.S. App. D.C. 177 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Leonard B. Sussholz, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Mr. Marvin P. Sa-dur, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant., Mr. J. E. Bindeman, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Dexter M. Kohn and Leonard W. Burka, Washington, D. C. , were on the brief, for appellee Sus-ser., Mr. Leonard C. Collins, Washington, D. C., entered an appearance for appellee Seelye.

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Ralph Nader, Esquire, and Center for Auto Safety, Inc. v. John Volpe, Individually, and as Secretary of the Department of Transportation (D.C. Cir. 1972)
McCallum v. McCallum (D.C. 1969)
Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior v. D. C. Transit System, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Industrial Bank of Washington, a Corporation v. Walter N. Tobriner, Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and Theodore J. Scheve (D.C. Cir. 1968)

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 District Court acted within its permissible discretion in denying plaintiff’s motions for a preliminary injunction and receiver pendente lite; but in doing so the court made findings of fact and conclusions of law which went beyond the necessities of the preliminary stage of the case and which seem to decide matters more appropriately left for decision after the trial. For this reason, exercising our authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2106 (1958), the findings and conclusions are set aside, the subject matter thereof to await full development of the facts and consideration of the law applicable thereto.

While we do not require the case to be advanced for trial we suggest that its nature might well lead the District Court to give further consideration to the motion to advance.

Affirmed.

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