Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Charlton v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided June 2, 1969No. 16670Published

1ConcurrenceStahl, Circuit Judge

I am in full accord with the opinion of the majority holding that the scope of review standard articulated by the district court is too narrow and that the appeal must, therefore, be remanded for further proceedings. I also agree that our prior decision in Cohen v. Ryder, 373 F.2d 530 (1967), did not deal fully with the issue of scope of review in cases of this kind and is thus not inconsistent with what we decide here. However, I cannot go all the way with the position adopted by the majority that in cases involving discharge of government employees the substantial evidence test is one of…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Rusk v. CortSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Richard D. Meehan v. John W. MacY Jr., Chairman, Civil Service CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
  4. Powelton Civic Home Owners Ass'n Ex Rel. Hilburn Harbidge v. Department of Housing & Urban DevelopmentDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1968
  5. Cappadora v. CelebrezzeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API