KENNELLY

v.

CALIFORNIA ET AL.; AND STURDEVANT V. SETTLE, WARDEN

Citator

Cited By

• Masae Kondo v. Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, 356 F.2d 351 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
  …pplicable to suits arising under the Trading with the Enemy Act faces immediately our holding that “estoppel cannot be used against the Federal Government” in Legerlotz v. Rogers, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 256, 266 F. 2d 457, 459 n. 5 (1959), cert. dismissed 362 U.S. 938, 80 S.Ct. 803, 4 L.Ed.2d 768 (1960). That case also involved a suit for the return of vested property under the Act involved in the present case. Similar holdings may be found in Anderegg v. United States, 171 F. 2d 127 (4th Cir. 1948), cert. denied…
• Bosely v. City OF Euclid, 496 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1974)
  …mants may produce further evidence does not preclude the granting of summary judgment.” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Legerlotz v. Rogers, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 266, 266 F. 2d 457, cert. granted, 361 U. S. 808, 80 S.Ct. 76, 4 L.Ed.2d 57, cert. dismissed, 362 U.S. 938, 80 S.Ct. 803, 4 L.Ed.2d 768 (1959), wherein the court affirmed a summary judgment on the ground that the alleged issue of fact was essentially frivolous and not worthy of the court’s consideration. Accordingly, we hold that the District Court corr…