1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 563 F.2d
  5. 563 F.2d 1121 (1977)
 

UNITED STATES v. SOLOMON

No. 76-2184.

563 F.2d 1121 (1977)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Dr. Neil SOLOMON, Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene of the State of Maryland, Bert W. Schmickel, Director, Mental Retardation Administration, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene of the State of Maryland, and Dr. Marvin M. Malcotti, Superintendent, Rosewood State Hospital, Appellees, The National Association for Retarded Citizens, et al., The State of Texas, The State of Connecticut, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Amicus Curiae.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Decided October 12, 1977.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Frank D. Allen, Jr., Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Jervis S. Finney, U.S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., J. Stanley Pottinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Brian K. Landsberg, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on brief), for appellant.

Paul Walter, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, Md. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Judith K. Sykes and Stephen J. Sfekas, Asst. Attys. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees.

John L. Hill, Atty. Gen. of Texas, David M. Kendall, Jr., First Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas W. Choate, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Richel Rivers, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Texas, Austin, Tex., on brief for Amicus Curiae, State of Texas.

Jeffrey Cooper and Norman J. Watkins, Deputy Attys. Gen., J. Justin Blewitt, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Chief, Civ. Litigation, Robert P. Kane, Atty. Gen., Com. of Pennsylvania, and Carl R. Ajello, Atty. Gen., State of Connecticut, for Amicus Curiae.

Before WINTER, BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

The question we must decide is whether the Attorney General of the United States, without specific statutory authorization, has the right to bring suit on behalf of the United States against three state officials, responsible for the operation of a state hospital for the confinement and treatment of mentally retarded persons, to redress the alleged deprivation of Eighth, Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the patients. The district...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases