Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Joseph S. Gullo, Arlington, Va., for appellants. Mr. Paul Daniel, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Carlyle C. Ring, Jr., Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee Veterans Cooperative Housing Ass'n. Mr. James R. Worsley, Jr., Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellee Veterans Cooperative Housing Ass'n. Mr. Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, and Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee District of Columbia.
Judges
  • Wilbur Kingsbury Miller
  • David L. Bazelon
  • Walter Maximillian Bastian
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. Joseph S. Gullo, Arlington, Va., for appellants. Mr. Paul Daniel, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Carlyle C. Ring, Jr., Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellee Veterans Cooperative Housing Ass'n. Mr. James R. Worsley, Jr., Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for appellee Veterans Cooperative Housing Ass'n. Mr. Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel for the District of Columbia, with whom Messrs. Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, and Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee District of Columbia.
Judges
  • Wilbur Kingsbury Miller
  • David L. Bazelon
  • Walter Maximillian Bastian
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Joseph S. GULLO and Vi v. an B. Gullo, Appellants,

PER CURIAM.

This case was dismissed by the District Court apparently on the ground of res judicata, the court taking judicial notice of the previous case between the parties, the details of which are spelled out in Gullo v. Veterans Cooperative Housing Association, 1957, 101 U.S.App. D.C. 167, 247 F.2d 573.

In all its essential particulars, the present action is the same as that of the previous case, and the District Court correctly applied the doctrine of res judicata.

While the defense of laches was interposed, it is not necessary that we pass on that issue.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

GULLO v. VETERANS COOPERATIVE HOUSING ASS'N
(May 28, 1959)