Frank Camero v. The United States
United States Court of Claims
1DissentDavis, Judge
Under the Army’s Civilian Personnel Regulations, plaintiff’s ease was heard by a grievance committee “established at the installation level to make findings of fact, hear and evaluate evidence, and make recommendations to the commander as to appropriate disposition of individual cases.” Having thus created a hearing-type remedy for its employees, the Army was bound to follow the fair procedure implicit in that grant, even though a more summary disposition was permitted by the Lloyd LaFollette Act. Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957); Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Burdeau v. McDowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Service v. DullesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Vitarelli v. SeatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.