Arthur M. Parker, Jr., & Tom K. Wheeler v. Louise O. Wellborn, 261 F.2d 767 (D.C. Cir. 1958). · Go Syfert
Search
Arthur M. Parker, Jr., & Tom K. Wheeler v. Louise O. Wellborn, 261 F.2d 767 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Commission (2×)
W. Va. · 2007 · confidence medium
As the Colorado Court of Appeals explained in Valdez v. Cantor, 994 P.2d 483 (Colo.App.1999), a RIF is considered a “reduction in the net strength of the employing activity.” 994 P.2d at 485 , quoting Ritter v. Strauss, 261 F.2d 767, 771 (D.C.Cir.1958).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paul Hondros v. United States Civil Service Commission (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Cf. Keener v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 334, 338 (1964); Ritter v. Strauss, 261 F.2d 767, 771 (D.C.Cir.1958) (RIF may not be used as surrogate for effecting discharge); see note 15 supra. 77 Thus, having tested the Service's actions against the criteria adopted by this court in Local 2855, supra, it is evident that the Service's discretion to request a certificate of eligibles is judicially reviewable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hondros v. United States Civil Service Commission (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Cf. Keener v. United States, 165 Ct.Cl. 334, 338 (1964); Ritter v. Strauss, 261 F.2d 767, 771 (D.C.Cir.1958) (RIF may not be used as surrogate for effecting discharge); see note 15 supra. Thus, having tested the Service’s actions against the criteria adopted by this court in Local 2855, supra, it is evident that the Service’s discretion to request a certificate of eligibles is judicially reviewable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robert I. Powell v. Eugene M. Zuckert
D.C. Cir. · 1966 · confidence medium
Thus the Supreme Court excused a delay spent in an attempt to obtain reinstatement through Congress, Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 106-107 , 47 S.Ct. 21 , 71 L.Ed. 160 (1926) (14 months), and this court has excused delays caused by reasonable mistakes as to the proper procedure, Ritter v. Strauss, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 301, 306 , 261 F.2d 767, 772 (1958) (14 months), and as to the applicable rule of law, Duncan v. Summer-field, supra (32 months).
cited Cited "see" Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture v. Kenyon B. Zahner
D.C. Cir. · 1960 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ritter v. Strauss, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 301 , 261 F. 2d 767 (1958).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Staskus v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Ritter v. Strauss, 261 F.2d 767 (D.C.Cir.1958); Kelly v. United States, 133 Ct.Cl. 571 , 138 F.Supp. 244 (1964) which hold that RIF’s must be conducted in good faith.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arthur M. PARKER, Jr., and Tom K. Wheeler, Appellants,
v.
Louise O. WELLBORN, Appellee
14473_1.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Nov 20, 1958.
261 F.2d 767
Mr. Charles H. Quimby, Washington, D. C., for appellants., Mr. Henry H. Paige, Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Arthur P. Drury, John M. Lynham and John E. Powell, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Miller, Bazelon, Burger.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellants sued to reform a contract under which they had given appellee a series of notes. She filed a counterclaim on those notes which had become due and was given judgment thereon, although the issues as to reformation had not been reached. The court expressly determined, however, in accordance with Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, [1] there was no just reason for delay as to the counterclaim. This appeal is from the judgment awarded on the matured notes.

The claims of the appellants remain undetermined, and are not affected by the judgment on the counterclaim. We find no error.

Affirmed.

1

. 28 U.S.C.A.