Boylan v. Quarles, No. 12892.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation235 F.2d 834,98 US App. DC 337
PartiesThomas J. BOYLAN, Appellant, v. Donald A. QUARLES, Secretary of the Air Force, et al., Appellees.
Decision Date21 June 1956
Docket NumberNo. 12892.

98 US App. DC 337, 235 F.2d 834 (1956)

Thomas J. BOYLAN, Appellant,
v.
Donald A. QUARLES, Secretary of the Air Force, et al., Appellees.

No. 12892.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued May 18, 1956.

Decided June 21, 1956.


235 F.2d 835

Mr. Ford E. Young, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Josiah Lyman, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Mr. Milton Eisenberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellees.

Before PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER, and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Boylan brought a civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In an amended complaint he alleged that he had been employed in the Philadelphia Regional Office of the Air Force and that as the result of his actions in certain matters he became the object of a campaign by some of his superiors and co-workers to find fault with his work, embarrass him, and build up a case looking toward his dismissal. As the result of such efforts, he alleged, a letter of charges was served upon him. He said the charges were lacking in substance, that they had been built up by magnifying trivial incidents which had occurred from time to time over a long period and were nothing more than collective efforts of the conspirators to cause him to be discharged.

He apparently replied to the letter of charges, and he later appealed to the Civil Service Commission from the personnel action of the Regional Office of the Air Force dismissing him. The Commission affirmed the action of the agency. He then appealed to the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air Force but was advised (1) that the Secretary of Defense does not review appeals of personnel actions in the military departments and (2) that in order to avoid duplicate appeal processes the Air Force does not entertain appeals after an appeal in the same action has been taken to the Civil Service Commission. Boylan attempted to obtain reconsideration by the Commission, but the Commission declined to reopen the matter, stating that he had not shown any substantial reason therefor based upon new and material evidence.

In his complaint in the District Court Boylan prayed for a writ of mandamus requiring the defendant Secretaries to restore him to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Polcover v. Secretary of Treasury, No. 71-1920.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 4 Abril 1973
    ...over the past twenty years, from review limited to insuring statutory compliance, see, e. g., Boylan v. Quarles, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 235 F.2d 834 (1956), to that requiring at least the exercise of discretion by the agency official, see Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App. D.C. 85, 243 F.2d......
  • Charlton v. United States, No. 16670.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 2 Junio 1969
    ...U.S.App.D.C. 187, 243 F.2d 610 (1957), cert. den. 355 U.S. 819, 78 S.Ct. 25, 2 L.Ed.2d 35 (1957); Boylan v. Quarles, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 235 F.2d 834 (1956)." (Emphasis We are of the opinion that the standard of the scope of judicial review of a federal agency's action stated and applied b......
  • Chiriaco v. United States, Civ. A. No. 1210.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 6 Septiembre 1963
    ...819, 78 S.Ct. 25, 2 L.Ed.2d 35 (1957); Saggau v. Young, 100 U.S. App.D.C. 3, 240 F.2d 865 (1956); Boylan v. Quarles, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 235 F.2d 834 (1956); Ellis v. Mueller, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 280 F.2d 722, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 883, 81 S.Ct. 172, 5 L.Ed. 2d 104 (1960). 235 F. Supp. ......
  • OFFICE EMPLOYEES INT. UNION v. National Labor Rel. Bd., No. 12896.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 21 Junio 1956
    ...its opinion the Board expressly overruled a prior case4 in which it had assumed jurisdiction in a representation matter involving a union 235 F.2d 834 and its employees. But the Board has power to change its mind, just as a court does, and both of two conflicting views are often rational, n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Polcover v. Secretary of Treasury, No. 71-1920.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 4 Abril 1973
    ...over the past twenty years, from review limited to insuring statutory compliance, see, e. g., Boylan v. Quarles, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 235 F.2d 834 (1956), to that requiring at least the exercise of discretion by the agency official, see Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App. D.C. 85, 243 F.2d......
  • Charlton v. United States, No. 16670.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 2 Junio 1969
    ...U.S.App.D.C. 187, 243 F.2d 610 (1957), cert. den. 355 U.S. 819, 78 S.Ct. 25, 2 L.Ed.2d 35 (1957); Boylan v. Quarles, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 235 F.2d 834 (1956)." (Emphasis We are of the opinion that the standard of the scope of judicial review of a federal agency's action stated and applied b......
  • Chiriaco v. United States, Civ. A. No. 1210.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 6 Septiembre 1963
    ...819, 78 S.Ct. 25, 2 L.Ed.2d 35 (1957); Saggau v. Young, 100 U.S. App.D.C. 3, 240 F.2d 865 (1956); Boylan v. Quarles, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 235 F.2d 834 (1956); Ellis v. Mueller, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 174, 280 F.2d 722, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 883, 81 S.Ct. 172, 5 L.Ed. 2d 104 (1960). 235 F. Supp. ......
  • OFFICE EMPLOYEES INT. UNION v. National Labor Rel. Bd., No. 12896.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 21 Junio 1956
    ...its opinion the Board expressly overruled a prior case4 in which it had assumed jurisdiction in a representation matter involving a union 235 F.2d 834 and its employees. But the Board has power to change its mind, just as a court does, and both of two conflicting views are often rational, n......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT