Council of School Officers v. Vaughn
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSchwelb, Associate Judge
I concur in the majority’s holding that we should not reach the merits, for CSO failed to join an indispensable party, namely, the District of Columbia. Indeed, the District, as the party responsible for paying the salaries of CSO’s members, is the only potential defendant against whom CSO could obtain the relief it seeks. I also join my colleagues in holding that Vaughn and Rumsey are not appropriate parties defendant, that CSO can gain nothing from their presence in the litigation, and that the complaint should forthwith be dismissed against each of them.1
I am, however, unable to agree that…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Singleton v. WulffSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Dred Scott v. SandfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1857
- Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Marilyn Kay Fernandez, Etc., Banco Nacional De Cuba, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-Appellees, Gilbert McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
- Daine v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
- D.D. v. M.T.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1988
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.