Opinion

Hartman v. Hazen

  • 2 D.C. 166
Court
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Filed
Jul 1, 1935
Status
Published
Author
Adkins
On the bench
Adkins
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 6.1%

The opinion

*167 MEMORANDUM

ADKINS, J.

Under the statute the plaintiff had the right to make application to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to review the order suspending his operator’s permit. Such application would have operated as a stay of the order of suspension until the decision of the Commissioners.

Therefore it was the duty of plaintiff to avail himself of this administrative remedy before bringing suit in court—Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin, 293 U. S. 163, 172 ; Chicago Elc. Ry. Co. v. Risty, 276 U. S. 567, 575 ; Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Tax Comm., 266 U. S. 265 ; Goldsmith v. Board of Tax App., 270 U. S. 123 ; U. S. ex rel. Connor v. District of Columbia, 61 App. D. C. 288.

Plaintiff having failed to avail himself of this administrative remedy, a temporary restraining order should not be issued.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.