U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1962

Leland A. Chappelle v. Dudley C. Sharp, Secretary of the Department of the Air Force

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 28, 1962 · Prettyman, Washington, Burger

301 F.2d 506 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Sommers T. Brown, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Paul M. Rhodes, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for •appellant., Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellees. Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., Mr. Charles T. Dun-nan, Principal Asst. U. S. Atty., and Miss Doris H. Spangenburg, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Motto v. General Services Administration (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1971)
Veatch v. Resor (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1967)

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.

This is a civil action in which the plaintiff sought reinstatement in a Civil Service position in Federal Government employ, expungement from the employment records of all references to his removal, and back pay for the period of his unemployment. His appeal to the Civil Service Commission was adversely decided on August 1, 1957. He filed his complaint June 17, 1960. This was thirty-four and one-half months after the final administrative action on his removal. The defendant officials moved to dismiss, filing in support an affidavit reciting facts which upon their face posed the problem of laches. Plaintiff filed an opposition, in which he referred to the defendants’ “attempting to raise the issue of laches”. The trial court entered summary judgment.

The plaintiff’s case was barred by laches. The law on the point was established by United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane 1 in 1919 and has consistently been applied by the federal courts in many cases since then. 2 *****8 The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.

. 249 U.S. 367, 372, 39 S.Ct. 293, 63 L.Ed. 650.

. E. g., Norris v. United States, 257 U.S. 77, 42 S.Ct. 9, 66 L.Ed. 136 (1921); Nicholas v. United States, 257 U.S. 71, 42 S.Ct. 7, 66 L.Ed. 133 (1921); Jones v. Summerfield, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 140, 265 F.2d 124 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 841, 80 S.Ct. 93, 4 L.Ed.2d 80 (1959); Drown v. Higley, 100 U.S.App. D.C. 326, 244 F.2d 774 (D.C.Cir. 1957); O’Connor v. Summerfield, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 249, 239 F.2d 69 (D.C.Cir. 1956); Haas v. Overholser, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 223 F.2d 314 (D.C.Cir. 1955); Sawyer v. Stevens, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 221 F.2d 822 (D.C.Cir. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 959, 75 S.Ct. 450, 99 L.Ed. 748 (1955); Davis v. Summerfield, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 78, 219 F.2d 510 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 349 U.S. 965, 75 S.Ct. 898, 99 L.Ed. 1286 (1955); Grasse v. Snyder, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 192 F.2d 35 (D.C.Cir. 1951); Caswell v. Morgenthau, 69 App.D.C. 15, 98 F.2d 296 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 305 U.S. 596, 59 S.Ct. 81, 83 L.Ed. 378 (1938).

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