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

Ernest S. Jenkyns v. Board of Education of District of Columbia

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided July 6, 1961 · Bazelon, Fahy, Burger

294 F.2d 260; 111 U.S. App. D.C. 64; 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3981 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Henry Lincoln Johnson, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. John R. Hess, Asst. Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corporation Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corporation Counsel, and Plubert B. Pair, Asst. Corporation Counsel, were on the brief, for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Jane Doe v. Robert E. Hampton, Individually and as Chairman, U. S. Civil Service Commission (D.C. Cir. 1977)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ETC. v. Holso (Wyo. 1978)
Frances Fisher v. James Snyder (8th Cir. 1973)
James v. West Virginia Board of Regents (District Court, S.D. West Virginia 1971)
Arnold Finfer v. Mortimer M. Caplin, Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2d Cir. 1965)
Pieri v. Director of Motor Vehicles (D.C. 1963)

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.

Appellant was employed as a principal at a junior high school in the District of Columbia. He was dismissed by the Board of Education, after hearing on charges of conduct against “morality and good order,” pursuant to Chapter X, § 1 of the Rules for the Public Schools of the District of Columbia. He sued to set aside the Board’s order. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Board, and this appeal followed.

It is not shown that any procedural requirements were violated. And we cannot say that the Board’s action was arbitrary and capricious even though we might have reached a different result. Although the conduct involved herein was earlier made the subject of a criminal proceeding wherein the District Court directed a verdict of not guilty, that determination does not bar or control the result of the instant administrative action. Silver v. McCamey, 1955, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 221 F.2d 873. It follows that the order of the District Court must be

Affirmed,

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