Case Name: Robert RAMSPECK et al., Appellants, v. FEDERAL TRIAL EXAMINERS CONFERENCE et al., Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1952-07-16
Citations: 202 F.2d 312
Docket Number: No. 11421
Parties: Robert RAMSPECK et al., Appellants, v. FEDERAL TRIAL EXAMINERS CONFERENCE et al., Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 202
Pages: 312–316

Head Matter:
Robert RAMSPECK et al., Appellants, v. FEDERAL TRIAL EXAMINERS CONFERENCE et al., Appellees.
No. 11421.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 16, 1952.
Decided July 16, 1952.
Writ of Certiorari Granted Oct 20,. 1952.
See 73 S.Ct. 93.
William R. Glendon, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., Joseph M. Howard, Asst. U. S. Atty., and John J. McCarthy, Atty. United States Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellants. Ross O’Donoghue, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., also entered his appearance for appellants.
Charles S. Rhyne, Washington, D. C., with whom Eugene J. Bradley and Eugene F. Mullin, Jr., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellees.
Richard S. Doyle, Donald C. Beelar, and Edward de Grazia, Washington, D. C., filed a brief in behalf of The Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Inc., as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.
Edward M. Reidy, Chief Counsel, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., filed a brief in behalf of the Interstate Commerce Commission, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. Harry L. Underwood, Washington, D. C., also entered his appearance for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
James H. Molloy, pro se, filed a memorandum as amicus curiae, urging affirmance.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, PROCTOR and BAZELON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The urgency of a speedy determination of' this controversy is recognized by all parties concerned and accounts for the immediate hearing and consideration of the case by this court.
It is the conclusion of the majority that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed. Their views are in substantial accord with those of Chief Judge Laws of the District Court set forth in his opinion, 104 F.Supp. 734.
Affirmed.