Hills v. Eisenhart

Good Law
256 F.2d 609·1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4387
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 17, 195815795_1California2,033 words

Opinion

Opinion

256 F.2d 609 Frank H. HILLS, Cecil La Mar, Arthur D. Dunkelburger, Calvin Winkler, Lloyd Barker, Alan Widener, Eual Blansett, Andrew O. Stanley, James King and Arthur Bowland, Appellants, v. Colonel EISENHART, Colonel Dalene Bailey, Colonel David Daniel, Colonel Robert David, Major John Desmond, Major Bruce L. Sooy, Major Leo Purseglove, Lieutenant Colonel Bernard Passero and Sam Butturf, Appellees. No. 15795. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. June 17, 1958. Landis, Brody & Martin, Thomas Martin, Sacramento, Cal., for appellants. Lloyd H. Burke, G. Joseph Bertain, Jr., Charles Elmer Collett, U.S. Attys., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees. Claude L. Dawson, Nat. Judge Advocate, Federal Employees Veterans Ass'n, Washington, D.C., amicus curiae. Before STEPHENS, Chief Judge, and MATHEWS and POPE, Circuit Judges. MATHEWS, Circuit Judge. 1 On October 24, 1957, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Northern Division, appellants and two other plaintiffs brought a civil action against appellees, hereafter called defendants. The complaint alleged, in substance, that plaintiffs (appellants and their two coplaintiffs) were civilians…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.