Hargett v. Summerfield, No. 13169.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | FAHY, WASHINGTON and BASTIAN, Circuit |
| Citation | 100 US App. DC 85,243 F.2d 29 |
| Parties | Newell M. HARGETT, Appellant, v. Arthur E. SUMMERFIELD et al., Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 13169. |
| Decision Date | 21 March 1957 |
100 US App. DC 85, 243 F.2d 29 (1957)
Newell M. HARGETT, Appellant,
v.
Arthur E. SUMMERFIELD et al., Appellees.
No. 13169.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued December 5, 1956.
Decided March 21, 1957.
Mr. John R. Foley, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Milton Eisenberg, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., and Robert L. Toomey, Asst. U. S. Atty., at the time brief was filed, were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., at the time record was filed, and Mr. Frank H. Strickler, Asst. U. S. Atty. at the time record was filed, also entered appearances for appellees.
Before FAHY, WASHINGTON and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges.
BASTIAN, Circuit Judge.
Appellant filed suit in the United States District Court asking that appellees be enjoined from removing him from his position as postmaster of the first class at Maysville, Kentucky, and that the removal action and decision against him be declared unlawful and void.
Letters of charges were filed by the Post Office Department against appellant, who is a Veterans' Preference eligible. To these charges he made a timely reply and, thereafter, he was ordered removed from his position. He appealed to the Sixth Regional Office of the Civil Service Commission, which, after hearing, affirmed the action of the Post Office Department. On further appeal to the Civil Service Commission, the decision of the regional office was affirmed. This civil action was then filed and, on motion of appellees, summary judgment was entered in their favor.
In this court appellant raises two points: First, he says that only the President can remove a postmaster of the first class appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and that, since the President has not participated
As to the first contention: it is true that postmasters of the first class are appointed by the President. Previously it was provided by statutes that postmasters of the first, second and third classes were to be appointed by the President and were to hold office for four years, unless sooner removed or suspended by the President. The present statute, 39 U.S.C.A. § 31a, provides that postmasters of the first, second and third classes are to be appointed in the classified service, without term, by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. It was provided also that the Veterans' Preference Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 851-869, should apply to such appointments. Therefore appellant is removable in accordance with the same procedures as any other classified civil service employee and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drake v. Covington County Board of Education, Civ. A. No. 4144-N.
...and should not be the basis of discharge. That contention is not accepted by this Court. See Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29 Miss Drake admitted at the original hearing that this matter was talked all over the streets of Florala. Her effectiveness as a public school......
-
Polcover v. Secretary of Treasury, No. 71-1920.
...(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 29 (1957), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 477 F.2d 1226 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1957), to finally the more current "rational basis test," see ......
-
United States v. Fausto, No. 86-595
...Taylor v. United States Civil Service Comm'n, 374 F.2d 466 (CA9 1967), injunction, see, e.g., Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29 (1957), and declaratory judgment, see, e.g., Camero v. McNamara, 222 F.Supp. 742 (ED Pa.1963). See generally R. Vaughn, Principles of Civil ......
-
Doe v. Hampton, No. 76-1090
...1012, (1959); Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957); Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 88, 243 F.2d 29, 32, cert. denied, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 17 See e. g., Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d ......
-
Drake v. Covington County Board of Education, Civ. A. No. 4144-N.
...and should not be the basis of discharge. That contention is not accepted by this Court. See Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29 Miss Drake admitted at the original hearing that this matter was talked all over the streets of Florala. Her effectiveness as a public school......
-
Polcover v. Secretary of Treasury, No. 71-1920.
...(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 29 (1957), cert. denied, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 477 F.2d 1226 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1957), to finally the more current "rational basis test," see ......
-
United States v. Fausto, No. 86-595
...Taylor v. United States Civil Service Comm'n, 374 F.2d 466 (CA9 1967), injunction, see, e.g., Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 243 F.2d 29 (1957), and declaratory judgment, see, e.g., Camero v. McNamara, 222 F.Supp. 742 (ED Pa.1963). See generally R. Vaughn, Principles of Civil ......
-
Doe v. Hampton, No. 76-1090
...1012, (1959); Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957); Hargett v. Summerfield, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 85, 88, 243 F.2d 29, 32, cert. denied, 353 U.S. 970, 77 S.Ct. 1060, 1 L.Ed.2d 1137 17 See e. g., Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d ......