Case Name: NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD v. BROWNELL
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1954-05-04
Citations: 215 F.2d 485
Docket Number: No. 12059
Parties: NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD v. BROWNELL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 215
Pages: 485–487

Head Matter:
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD v. BROWNELL.
No. 12059.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued March 23, 1954.
Decided May 4, 1954.
McGuire, J., dissented.
Mr. Osmond K. Fraenkel, New York City, and Mr. Earl B. Dickerson, Chicago, Ill., of the bar of the Supreme Court of Illinois, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Joseph Forer, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Benjamin Forman, Atty., Dept, of Justice, New York City, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Samuel D. Slade, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Paul A. Sweeney, Atty., Dept, of Justice, and Mr. Lewis A. Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., entered appearances for appellee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER and PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judges, and MATTHEW F. McGUIRE, District Judge (sitting by designation).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a denial by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of a preliminary injunction. The motion for the injunction was considered by that court upon the pleadings filed by the complainant (our appellant), consisting of the complaint, the exhibits attached thereto, and affidavits in support of the motion. Upon consideration of the arguments on the appeal to this court, presented in the briefs and upon oral argument, and of the facts contained in the complaint, the exhibits, and the affidavits which were before the District Court (which facts have not yet been controverted in the record before us), we are of the opinion that the interests of justice would be served best in this matter if the administrative hearing were held in abeyance pending the judgment of the District Court upon the merits of the issues posed in the action. An order to that effect will be entered. The motion was for a preliminary injunction of the usual scope, effective until the ultimate disposition of the case, including appeals. But we think such an extensive stay is not justified at the present stage of the proceedings. We suggest to the District Court that, if the calendar of its business permits, the public interest would be served if this action -could be heard and determined at an early date.
Reversed and remanded.