LELAND A. CHAPPELLE, APPELLANT,
v.
DUDLEY C. SHARP, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff's action was barred by laches due to the significant delay in filing.
Plaintiff sought reinstatement, expungement of records, and back pay after an adverse Civil Service Commission decision. He filed his complaint over t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Action For Back Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
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. Lane1 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).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cason v. The United States, 461 F.2d 784 (Ct. Cl. 1972)
Authorities Cited (18 total)
- United States Ex rel. Arant v. Lane, 249 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1919)
- Norris v. United States, 257 U.S. 77 (U.S. 1921)
- Nicholas v. United States, 257 U.S. 71 (U.S. 1921)
- Caswell v. Morgenthau, 98 F.2d 296 (D.C. Cir. 1938)
- Grasse v. Snyder, 192 F.2d 35 (D.C. Cir. 1951)
- Mollie Sawyer v. Stevens, 221 F.2d 822 (D.C. Cir. 1954)
- Liebmann Breweries, Inc. v. Superior Court of Cal. in & for the Cnty. of Los Angeles, 361 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1959)
- Taylor v. United States, 305 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1938)
- Caswell v. Morgenthau, 305 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1938)
- Drown v. Higley, 244 F.2d 774 (D.C. Cir. 1957)