U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1963

Hilton Hotels Corporation v. Robert C. Weaver, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided November 18, 1963 · Washington, Bastian, Wright

325 F.2d 1010; 117 U.S. App. D.C. 83 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Paul A. Porter, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Milton V. Freeman and Melvin C. Garbow, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants., Mr. David Epstein, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker and Mrs. Ellen Lee Park, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Robert D. Devlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision. The 19 that cite it most often are listed here.

Marshall v. District Unemployment Compensation Board (D.C. 1977)
American Civil Liberties Union, a Non-Profit Corporation v. Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense (7th Cir. 1972)
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Frank Ragonese, D/B/A Square Construction Company and La Fera Contracting Company (D.C. Cir. 1980)
Common Cause v. Judicial Ethics Committee (District Court, District of Columbia 1979)
Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. And Public Citizen's Health Research Group v. Consumer Product Safety Commission (D.C. Cir. 1978)
Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission (District Court, District of Columbia 1975)
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)
Spock v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1971)
Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Swope (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1971)
United States v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. (3d Cir. 1967)
Frye v. United States (District Court, District of Columbia 2025)
Williamson v. Walton (District Court, District of Columbia 2025)
Driever v. United States of America (District Court, District of Columbia 2020)
John S. Stritzinger v. Christiana Trust, a Division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (Tex. App. 2016)
Felix v. West (United States Court of Veteran Appeals 2000)
Felix v. West (United States Court of Veteran Appeals 2000)
Felix v. West (United States Court of Veteran Appeals 1999)
Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Michael Dombeck, Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management, and Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior (D.C. Cir. 1997)
Berry v. Housing & Home Finance Agency (District Court, N.D. New York 1964)

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 case raises issues of fact and law virtually identical to those which were considered by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Pittsburgh Hotels Association, Inc. v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 309 F.2d 186 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 916, 83 S.Ct. 730, 9 L.Ed.2d 723 (1963); The parties there were substantially the same as those now before us, though relief here is sought against a Federal official, and there was sought against private parties and state officials. If the present appellants had obtained in the Third Circuit the relief they there sought, the controversy would have been effectively concluded. We are satisfied that in the interests of comity and the orderly administration of justice 1 we should not attempt to reexamine the matters considered and resolved by the Third Circuit, a court having authority equal to our own. The order of the District Court, dismissing the complaint, will therefore be

Affirmed.

. We need not decide whether the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel operate to prevent a plaintiff from raising issues against a defendant who was not a party in a previous litigation in which plaintiff unsuccessfully raised the same issues. We decide only that whore a prior decision against the plaintiff on the same issues he raises in the instant case would necessarily be frustrated or obstructed by a present decision in the plaintiff’s favor this court will not interfere with the prior decision adverse to the plaintiff.

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