LAW.coLAW.co

Juanita MANSFIELD et al., Plaintiffs, v. Caspar W. WEINBERGER, Defendant

United States District Court for the District of Columbia1975-07-29No. Civ. A. No. 75-365
398 F. Supp. 964

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In light of the Supreme Court decision in Weinberger v. Salfi,-U.S.-, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975), and of the entire record herein, we conclude, sua sponte, that since no substan tial constitutional question is presented a three-judge district court is not required to hear and determine this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2282 (1970). See Idlewild Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 715, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794 (1962); Brotherhood of Locomotive Fire. & E. v. Certain Carriers, Etc., 118 U.S.App.D.C. 100, 331 F.2d 1020, cert. denied, 377 U.S. 918, 84 S.Ct. 1181, 12 L.Ed.2d 187 (1964). Accordingly, the three-judge district court heretofore convened is hereby dissolved. See Weinberger v. Salfi, supra; MTM, Inc. v. Baxley, 420 U.S. 799, 95 S.Ct. 1278, 43 L.Ed.2d 636 (1975); Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90, 95 S.Ct. 289, 42 L.Ed.2d 249 (1974); Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Comm’n, 393 U.S. 83, 89 S.Ct. 60, 21 L.Ed.2d 215 (1968); Wilson v. Port Lavaca, 391 U.S. 352, 88 S.Ct. 1502, 20 L.Ed.2d 636 (1968).

So ordered.