Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Kletschka v. Driver 411 F.2d 436

Kletschka v. Driver 411 F.2d 436

Ratings: (0)|Views: 8 |Likes:
Published by Thalia Sanders
landmark case: 1st and 14th Amendment
landmark case: 1st and 14th Amendment

More info:

Published by: Thalia Sanders on Jun 23, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-
Date/Time of Request: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 15:34 EasternClient Identifier: PATRON ACCESSDatabase: FEDFINDCitation Text: 411 F.2d 436Lines: 993Documents: 1Images: 0
The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,West and their affiliates.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.Dr. Harold D. KLETSCHKA, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.William J. DRIVER, Individually and as Adminis-trator of the Veterans Administration, et al., De-fendants-Appellees.
No. 418, Docket 32698.
Argued March 6, 1969.Decided April 22, 1969.Action by Veterans' Administration doctor, whohad been ordered transferred from veterans' hospitaland whose research grant had not been renewed, forinjunctive relief and damages for interference withemployment rights by certain federal and state offi-cials. The United States District Court for theNorthern District of New York, Edmund Port, J.,rendered summary judgment against plaintiff, andplaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals, Lumbard,Chief Judge, held that the record presented factquestions as to whether the transfer was disciplin-ary, so as to entitle plaintiff doctor to a hearing, andas to whether there had been violation of federalrights under color of state law.Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remandedfor further proceedings.West Headnotes
[1]Federal Courts 170B 802
170BFederal Courts170BVIIICourts of Appeals170BVIII(K)Scope, Standards, and Extent 170BVIII(K)3Presumptions170Bk802. SummaryJudgment. Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k406.5(3))Truth of complaint must be assumed for purpose of reviewing propriety of summary judgment for de-fendants.
[2]Federal Civil Procedure 170A 2470.4
170AFederal Civil Procedure170AXVIIJudgment170AXVII(C)Summary Judgment 170AXVII(C)1In General170Ak2465Matters Aff ecting Right toJudgment170Ak2470.4k. Right to Judgmentas Matter of Law.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 170Ak2470)Summary judgment may not be rendered unlesspleadings and supplementary affidavits show thatthere is no genuine issue as to any material fact andthat moving party is entitled to judgment as matterof law.Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 56(c), 28 U.S.C.A.
[3]Federal Courts 170B 92
170BFederal Courts170BIIVenue170BII(A)In General 170Bk92k. Different Districts in SameState; Different Divisions in Same District.MostCited CasesVenue of action by Veterans Administration doctoragainst state and federal defendant, for injunctiverelief and damages on account of his transfer fromVeterans Administration hospital in northern NewYork was properly laid in Northern District of NewYork.28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(b, e).
[4]Administrative Law and Procedure 15A651
15AAdministrative Law and Procedure15AVJudicial Review of Administrative De-cisions15AV(A)In General 15Ak651k. In General.Most Cited CasesIn absence of statute explicitly precluding judicialreview, extent to which agency action may be scru-tinized by courts depends on assessment of needfor, and feasibility of, review on one hand and pos-Page 1411 F.2d 436
(Cite as: 411 F.2d 436)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
sible disruption of administrative process whichmight be occasioned by review on the other.
[5]Officers and Public Employees 283 72.40
283Officers and Public Employees283IAppointment, Qualification, and Tenure283I(H)Proceedings for Removal, Suspen- sion, or Other Discipline283I(H)3Judicial Review283k72.40. In General.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 283k72(2))Where challenged personnel decision falls short of discharge, generally, courts should seek to discour-age arbitrary agency action by enforcing variousprocedural rights of affected employees, yet not byundertaking full substantive review of justificationfor decision.
[6]Federal Courts 170B 927
170BFederal Courts170BVIIICourts of Appeals170BVIII(L)Determination and Disposition of Cause170Bk926Affirmance170Bk927k.ParticularCases.Most Cited Cases(Formerly 106k406.9(4))Dismissal of complaint against chairman of FederalCivil Service Commission would be affirmed whereplaintiff, who alleged that Commission had failedto grant him relief from transfer, cited no authorityfor review and did not include in record any papersrelating to Commission proceedings.
[7]United States 393 36
393United States393IGovernment in General393k36k. Appointment or Employment and Tenure of Agents, Clerks, and Employees in Gener-al.Most Cited CasesIf Veterans Administration employee can point toviolation of statutory right, which courts may en-force, in connection with personnel decision, to thatextent action of Administration is reviewable underAdministrative Procedure Act.5 U.S.C.A. § 701(a).
[8]United States 393 39(5)
393United States393IGovernment in General393k39Compensation of Officers, Agents, and Employees393k39(5)k. Additional Compensation.Most Cited CasesVeterans Administration's failure to restore to doc-tor upon his return from service a research grantmade before he left was a nonreviewable discre-tionary decision.5 U.S.C.A. § 701(a); Universal Military Training and Service Act, § 9(b) (A) (i),50 U.S.C.A.App. § 459(b)(A) (i).
[9]United States 393 125(30)
393United States393IXActions393k125Liability and Consent of United States to Be Sued393k125(28)Particular Departments, Of-ficers, or Agencies, Suits Against393k125(30)k. DefenseDepartment.Most Cited CasesDistrict court has jurisdiction to grant declaratoryand injunctive relief if Veterans Administration em-ployee can establish that he is entitled to proceduralprotection afforded by statute requiring hearing be-fore disciplinary action; such relief operating on in-dividuals in their official capacities would not con-travene sovereign immunity.5 U.S.C.A. § 703;38 U.S.C.A. § 4110.
[10]United States 393 125(5)
393United States393IXActions393k125Liability and Consent of United States to Be Sued393k125(5)k. Mode and Sufficiency of Waiver or Consent.Most Cited CasesPage 2411 F.2d 436
(Cite as: 411 F.2d 436)
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->