Legal Opinion
United States ex rel. Laughlin v. Eicher
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided September 20, 1944No. 25056PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LOVETT, District Judge,
presiding by designation.
The controlling question for decision in this case is whether the requirement of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789,1 as amended, requiring judges of District Courts of the United States to “reside in the district * * * for which he is appointed” is applicable to the Chief Justice of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
The question arises in this way.
As an informer under the appropriate statute2, James J. Laughlin seeks to re*973cover double the amount of all sums received from the United States by Chief Justice…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kendall v. United States Ex Rel. StokesSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- O'Donoghue v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
- Keller v. Potomac Electric Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Butterworth v. United States Ex Rel. HoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- United States v. DuellSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- United States of America, Ex Rel., Max Killingsworth v. Northrop CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Minotti v. LensinkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Minotti v. LensinkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Paul K. StrotherCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1978
- United States ex rel. McGough v. Covington Technologies Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.