Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Hopkins v. Wallin, 179 F.2d 136, 3rd Cir. (1949)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the district court that had ordered the restoration of veteran civil service employees who had been demoted in a Navy Yard. The appellate court found that the injunction was improperly issued without findings of fact, a bond, or an allegation of the required jurisdictional amount in controversy. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with establishing jurisdiction and making the appropriate factual findings required to issue an injunction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Hopkins v. Wallin, 179 F.2d 136, 3rd Cir. (1949)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    30 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the district court that had ordered the restoration of veteran civil service employees who had been demoted in a Navy Yard. The appellate court found that the injunction was improperly issued without findings of fact, a bond, or an allegation of the required jurisdictional amount in controversy. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with establishing jurisdiction and making the appropriate factual findings required to issue an injunction.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1949-12-30 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 179 F.2d 136 Docket: 9865

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the district court that had ordered the restoration of veteran civil service employees who had been demoted in a Navy Yard. The appellate court found that the injunction was improperly issued without findings of fact, a bond, or an allegation of the required jurisdictional amount in controversy. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with establishing jurisdiction and making the appropriate factual findings required to issue an injunction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    30 views2 pages

    Hopkins v. Wallin, 179 F.2d 136, 3rd Cir. (1949)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the district court that had ordered the restoration of veteran civil service employees who had been demoted in a Navy Yard. The appellate court found that the injunction was improperly issued without findings of fact, a bond, or an allegation of the required jurisdictional amount in controversy. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with establishing jurisdiction and making the appropriate factual findings required to issue an injunction.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    179 F.

    2d 136

    HOPKINS et al.
    v.
    WALLIN et al.
    No. 9865.

    United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.


    Argued Oct. 3, 1949.
    Decided Dec. 30, 1949.
    1

    Eugene T. Maher, Washington, D.C. (H. G. Morrison, Assistant Attorney


    General, Gerald A. Gleeson, United States Attorney, Drew T. J. O'Keefe,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Philadelphia, Pa., Edward H. Hickey, Special
    Assistant to the Attorney General, on the brief), for appellants.

    Claude T. Dawson, Washington, D.C. (I. G. Gordon Forster, Philadelphia, Pa.,


    on the brief), for appellees.

    Before McLAUGHLIN and O'CONNELL, Circuit Judges, and FEE, District


    judge.

    JAMES ALGER FEE, District Judge.

    Hopkins and his associates, who are appellees, filed suit in the District Court. It
    appears from the record that plaintiffs-appellees are all permanent civil service
    employees of the United States in the Philadelphia Navy Yard, and each of
    them is an honorably discharged soldier or sailor. It further appears that
    appellants are officers in charge of the Navy Yard. Each of the appellees was
    reduced from the rank, grade and salary of supervisor, leadman or planner to
    that of mechanic, skilled worker or laborer, while at the same time appellants
    kept and maintained in the grade and salary of supervisors, leadmen or planners
    civilian employees who are not veterans and who had no better efficiency rating
    than appellees. There was no allegation as to the amount in controversy. The
    relief sought was restoration of each of the appellees to the respective position
    of supervisor. Appellees made a motion for a preliminary mandatory injunction
    requiring appellants to restore each appellee to his former position of
    supervisor, leadman or planner. The appellants moved in the alternative to
    dismiss or for summary judgment. Affidavits upon the merits were presented

    by appellants. On October 22, 1948, the Court granted the preliminary


    mandatory order of restoration, and on November 23, 1948, granted an order
    denying the motion to dismiss and summary judgment.
    6

    There are several reasons why this case cannot be considered here on the
    merits. The 'preliminary mandatory injunction' was interlocutory in nature and
    was issued by the Court without findings of fact, which are specifically
    required by Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Read,
    Superintendent v. Dickerson, 312 U.S. 656, 61 S.Ct. 713, 85 L.Ed. 1105, Sims
    v. Greene, 3 Cir., 161 F.2d 87, City Line Center, Inc. v. Loew's, Incorporated, 3
    Cir., 178 F.2d 267. There was no bond deposited prior to the granting of the
    order, which is likewise made a condition precedent. Such defects cannot be
    cured here since each requires the exercise of discretion by the Trial Court.

    Furthermore, the complaint did not allege presence in controversy of the


    jurisdictional amount required by statute. Concededly, this is a necessary
    allegation. As such, although the phrase might possibly be here added to the
    pleading, still the condition precedent to jurisdiction has not been fulfilled.
    There is yet a question of fact which must be determined by trial. The question
    of whether relief can be granted at all is not passed upon. But see the excellent
    opinion of Judge Driver in Palmer v. Walsh, D.C., 78 F.Supp. 64.

    In view of the fact that the preliminary mandatory injunction was issued by the
    Court without the proper foundation, and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the
    Court does not appear on the record, the order is hereby vacated and set aside
    and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
    opinion.

    Judge O'CONNELL heard the argument and participated in the decision in this
    case but died before the opinion was filed.

    You might also like