From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wunderle v. Kimball

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Dec 31, 1952
201 F.2d 707 (D.C. Cir. 1952)

Opinion

No. 11502.

Argued December 16, 1952.

Decided December 31, 1952.

Keith L. Seegmiller, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Frank H. Strickler, Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Charles M. Irelan, U.S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard and Frederick G. Smithson, Asst. U.S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee. William E. Kirk, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Washington, D.C., entered his appearance for appellee.

Before EDGERTON, PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.


Appellant was removed from employment in the classified civil service of the United States on July 11, 1941. At her request she was furnished a brief statement which purported to inform her of the reasons for her removal. Repeatedly thereafter she wrote various officials in the Navy Department, seeking reinstatement. On October 12, 1942, she was advised by the Assistant Secretary that the entire file had been reviewed and no reason found to warrant a change in the action taken. She continued, by letters addressed to various officials in the Navy Department and other officials, to seek reinstatement. She filed the present action January 23, 1952. The District Court was of opinion, upon the authority of Grasse v. Snyder, that the action was barred by laches. We agree with that conclusion.

1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 352, 192 F.2d 35. To the same effect is Baxter v. Pace, 1951, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 392, 193 F.2d 20.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Wunderle v. Kimball

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Dec 31, 1952
201 F.2d 707 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
Case details for

Wunderle v. Kimball

Case Details

Full title:WUNDERLE v. KIMBALL, Secretary, Department of Navy of United States

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Dec 31, 1952

Citations

201 F.2d 707 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
91 U.S. App. D.C. 394

Citing Cases

Haas v. Overholser

60 Stat. 243 (1946), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009. See Caswell v. Morgenthau, D.C. Cir. 1938, 69 App.D.C. 15, 98 F.2d…

Carney v. Gates

We affirm the dismissal on the ground that the suit is barred by laches. United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane,…