Image via WikipediaIn October last year, a three-judge panel composed of Karen Lecraft Henderson, Reggie B. Walton and James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the US Government’s motion to dismiss Rodearmel v. Clinton “pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denies FSO, David Rodearmel’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
That court’s ruling says “we dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction."
Judicial Watch appealed the ruling. Now, the Supremes have dismissed the case "for want of jurisdiction."
(ORDER LIST: 560 U.S.)
MONDAY, JUNE 7, 2010
APPEAL -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION
09-797 RODEARMEL, DAVID C. V. CLINTON, SEC. OF STATE, ET AL.
The District Court dismissed for lack of standing, 666 F. Supp. 2d 123, 127–131, and n. 10 (DC 2009), so it did not enter “any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State under article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution.” Joint Resolution on Compensation and Other Emoluments Attached to the Office of Secretary of State, §1(b)(3)(A), Pub. L. 110-455, 122 Stat. 5036, note following 5 U. S. C. §5312. The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/060710zor.pdf
The legal documents of this case, including the Government's motions are archived in Judicial Watch's Rodearmel v. Clinton page here.
Related Posts:
- Rodearmel v. Clinton: Appeal to SCOTUS Filed | Diplopundit | Nov 19, 2009
- Rodearmel v. Clinton: Dismissed | Diplopundit | Oct 30, 2009
- Rodearmel v. Clinton: Linguistics PhDs Wade In | October 26, 2009
- Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al: DOJ Files Motion to Dismiss | Diplopundit | May 26, 2009
- Dragging Foggy Bottom to Court | Feb 02, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment