From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McMahon v. Young

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Nov 4, 1957
177 F. Supp. 75 (D.D.C. 1957)

Opinion

No. 2203-55.

November 4, 1957.

Morris Weissberg, New York City, and Carl L. Shipley, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Dyer Justice Taylor, Washington, D.C., for defendants.


On the authority of Kirkpatrick v. Gray, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 138, 198 F.2d 533, the Court is of the opinion that the Veterans Preference Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 851 et seq., does not apply to this plaintiff. In that case Judge Edgerton points out that the preference eligible entitled to rights under the Act must be one who has (1) a permanent or indefinite appointment or tenure (2) in the Civil Service, and (3) has completed a probationary or trial period. This plaintiff had no appointment or tenure in the Civil Service at the time of the action of which he complains. Accordingly, the Court will deny the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and grant the defendants' motion.


Summaries of

McMahon v. Young

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Nov 4, 1957
177 F. Supp. 75 (D.D.C. 1957)
Case details for

McMahon v. Young

Case Details

Full title:Richard F. McMAHON, Plaintiff, v. Philip YOUNG, Chairman, United States…

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Nov 4, 1957

Citations

177 F. Supp. 75 (D.D.C. 1957)

Citing Cases

Baskin v. Tennessee Valley Authority

7. None of the nonveteran plaintiffs have termination rights under the Veterans' Preference Act ( 5 U.S.C. §…