From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gregory v. Railroad Retirement Bd. of the U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Dec 18, 1952
201 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1952)

Opinion

No. 11503.

December 18, 1952.

Hiram H. Owens and Sampson B. Knuckles, Barbourville, Ky., for appellant.

Myles F. Gibbons, David B. Schreiber, Associate Gen. Counsel, Louis Turner, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Ben Diamond, Chicago, Ill., for appellees.

Before ALLEN, MARTIN and McALLISTER, Circuit Judges.


This cause came on to be heard this day on the record, the motion to dismiss filed by appellee, and the briefs and oral arguments of the attorneys for both parties;

And it appearing that the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, for the reason that appellant has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before the Railroad Retirement Board, is well grounded, see Shelley v. Railroad Retirement Board, 9 Cir., 185 F.2d 239, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Though unnecessary to decision, inasmuch as the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, we think it advisable to say that had this court overruled the motion to dismiss it would have been compelled to decide this case against appellant on the merits, for the reason that the findings of fact upon which the Appeals Council of the Board based its decision are supported by the evidence in the case and are not based on any erroneous application of law.


Summaries of

Gregory v. Railroad Retirement Bd. of the U.S.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Dec 18, 1952
201 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1952)
Case details for

Gregory v. Railroad Retirement Bd. of the U.S.

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY v. RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE UNITED STATES et al

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Dec 18, 1952

Citations

201 F.2d 52 (6th Cir. 1952)

Citing Cases

Szostak v. Railroad Retirement Board

This proposition, rather obvious from mere reading of the statute, is confirmed by the case law. Shelley v.…

Gutierrez v. Railroad Retirement Bd.

Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction under 45 U.S.C. § 355(c) and 355(f) to review the Board's action.…