Di Silvestro v. Gray, 11048.
| Decision Date | 31 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 11048.,11048. |
| Parties | DI SILVESTRO v. GRAY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Joseph Di Silvestro, pro se.
Joseph Kovner, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty. at the time the brief was filed, and Edward H. Hickey, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty. at the time of argument, and Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., also entered appearances on behalf of appellee.
Charles H. Bergazin, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of the American Legion as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, FAHY and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied April 21, 1952. See 72 S.Ct. 765.
The judgment of the District Court, dismissing the complaint, is affirmed. Appellant has had his day in court. Di Silvestro v. United States Veterans' Administration, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1949, 81 F.Supp. 844, affirmed 2 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 933, amended complaint dismissed, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1950, 10 F.R. D. 20, affirmed 2 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 502, certiorari denied 1950, 339 U.S. 989, 70 S.Ct. 1014, 94 L.Ed. 1390. Having lost the previous litigation on its merits, appellant cannot now relitigate his cause simply by choosing another forum and by naming as defendant the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, in his official capacity as head of the Veterans' Administration, rather than (as previously) suing the Veterans' Administration as such. See also Baxter v. Pace, 89 U.S.App.D.C. ___, 193 F.2d 20.
So ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Fullwood
...as being in privity for [claim-preclusive] purposes.” Estevez v. Nabers, 219 F.2d 321, 323 (5th Cir.1955) (citing Di Silvestro v. Gray, 194 F.2d 355 (D.C.Cir.1952)). See, e.g., Warren v. McCall, 709 F.2d 1183, 1184–85 (7th Cir.1983) (finding that officers of the Commission were in privity w......
-
Lober v. Moore
...90 U.S.App.D.C. 28, 193 F.2d 35 (1951). 23 130 U.S.App.D.C. 43, 396 F.2d 692 (1968). 24 396 F.2d at 693. 25 See also Di Silvestro v. Gray, 90 U.S. App.D.C. 184, 194 F.2d 355, cert. denied 343 U.S. 930, 72 S.Ct. 765, 96 L.Ed. 1340 26 See Currie, Mutuality of Collateral Estoppel: Limits of th......
-
Jenson v. Huerta
...government, its officers, and its agencies are regarded as being in privity for [claim-preclusive] purposes.” (citing Di Silvestro v. Gray, 194 F.2d 355 (D.C.Cir.1952))); Tunica–Biloxi Tribe of La. v. United States, 577 F.Supp.2d 382, 416 (D.D.C.2008) (“ ‘Litigation involving the government......
-
Di Silvestro v. United States
...but his complaint was dismissed on the ground that the same question had already been litigated on the merits. Di Silvestro v. Gray, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 184, 194 F.2d 355, cert. denied, 343 U.S. 930, 72 S.Ct. 765, 96 L.Ed. 1340 Thereafter, the V.A. appears to have re-examined plaintiff's file a......