Military Law - Service Discharge - Judicial Review of Discharge Classifications

In 1954 petitioners were discharged from the Army in form other than honorable. Petitioner Harmon had previously been questioned by Army officials regarding alleged Communist affiliations. Since most of the charges against him were based on conduct antedating his induction into the Army and since his military record had been excellent, petitioner Harmon was informed that he would not be discharged as disloyal or subversive pursuant to Army regulations, but would be retained in his then present grade, assigned nonsensitive duties, and given a discharge at the end of his career appropriate to the character of the service he had rendered. Issuance of Directive 5210.9 shortly thereafter by the Secretary of Defense, which applied to military personnel the criteria of the civilian security program, resulted in review of petitioner Harmon\u27s case and his discharge as undesirable. While the record is not clear, petitioner Abramowitz apparently was discharged as undesirable under similar circumstances. After exhausting administrative remedies, petitioners brought suit seeking a declaration that their discharges were void and an order that the discharges be changed to honorable. Concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the action, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Army, and the court of appeals affirmed. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed, one justice dissenting. In a per curiam opinion the Court ruled that the district court had jurisdiction to determine whether the Secretary of the Army had exceeded his statutory authority in basing the discharge classification on conduct antedating induction, and petitioners had standing to bring this action. On the merits, the secretary may consider only a soldier\u27s military record; hence the secretary\u27s action was in excess of his statutory authority and the case should be remanded to the district court for relief to petitioners. Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 579 (1958)

Municipal Corporations - Contracts - Ratification and Estoppel in Contracts Made By Unauthorized Agent

Plaintiff\u27s infant daughter, admitted to Newark City Hospital as an emergency case, received hospitalization and medical treatment worth $1,190 during her seventy-day period of confinement. The medical director of the hospital had made an agreement with the Hospital Service Plan of New Jersey which provided that regardless of the amount or quality of the hospitalization required, payment of the flat sum of$100 for any subscriber-patient would constitute payment in full to the city. The city accepted the $100 check paid by the Plan as billed by the hospital for the care of the child. In order to facilitate settlement with the person whose alleged negligence had caused his daughter\u27s injuries, by removing the city\u27s hospital lien for the balance of the charges for treatment, plaintiff sued for a declaratory judgment absolving him of any liability to the city. The real contest having evolved between the city and the Plan, the trial court rendered judgment for the Plan ordering cancellation of the lien. On certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court, held, affirmed, one justice dissenting without opinion. Even assuming that the medical director was without authorization to consummate the agreement, the city is bound by its subsequent course of conduct which impliedly ratified the contract, and is also estopped to deny its validity. Johnson v. Hospital Service Plan of N.J., (N.J. 1957) 135 A. (2d) 483

Civil Procedure - Process - Immunity from Service of Nonresident Entering State to Discuss Settlement of a Dispute

Defendant, a resident of Idaho, leased a service station in Idaho from plaintiff, a Utah corporation. Plaintiff\u27s attorney travelled to Idaho to attempt settlement of difficulties which had arisen concerning the lease. When the Idaho negotiations failed, plaintiff invited defendant to make further attempts at settlement in Utah. Defendant accepted the proposal and, when the Utah negotiations proved unfruitful, defendant was served with process in Utah at plaintiff\u27s request. It was undisputed that defendant went to Utah solely to effect settlement, returning directly to Idaho after cessation of negotiations. On appeal from the trial court\u27s denial of defendant\u27s motion to quash service, held, reversed, one judge dissenting. Actual fraudulent intent in inducing a defendant to enter a state is not necessary to invalidate service of process on such defendant. When defendant was invited into the state to discuss settlement of a dispute and came for that sole purpose, he was not subject to service of civil process in the absence of notice by the party extending the invitation that he would be served with process if the attempted settlement failed. Western States Refining Co. v. Berry, (Utah 1957) 313 P. (2d) 480

Atomic Energy - Uranium Procurement - Legal Aspects of the AEC Domestic Ore Purchase Program

The federal government\u27s domestic uranium ore procurement program, initially announced following World War II to ensure maximum exploration and development for military purposes, has met with extraordinary success. So improved is this country\u27s military uranium picture that the Atomic Energy Commission was recently able to announce that uranium concentrate purchases would not be further increased. This announcement is viewed as a matter .of serious concern by the domestic ore producer, who must continue to look to the federal government as his sole market; a noticeable private market for peaceful uses of atomic energy fuels may not be realized for more than a decade. It becomes apparent that with the government market no longer unlimited, competition among producers and controversies with the AEC can be expected to grow more frequent and intense. Harbingers of such. developments are already on the scene. The first judicial decision interpreting language in the government\u27s guaranteed price circulars-Radium Mines, Inc. v. United States-was handed down a few months ago. It is anticipated that increasing competition and controversy will mean a correspondingly increased inspection and critical analysis of these price circulars, which at times are confusingly or improperly drafted. This comment is. designed to examine the legal and practical problems raised by these guarantees, with the anticipation that these problems may appear with considerably greater frequency in federal courts in the span of lean years before a substantial private market for uranium ore develops

Military Law - Service Discharge - Judicial Review of Discharge Classifications

In 1954 petitioners were discharged from the Army in form other than honorable. Petitioner Harmon had previously been questioned by Army officials regarding alleged Communist affiliations. Since most of the charges against him were based on conduct antedating his induction into the Army and since his military record had been excellent, petitioner Harmon was informed that he would not be discharged as disloyal or subversive pursuant to Army regulations, but would be retained in his then present grade, assigned nonsensitive duties, and given a discharge at the end of his career appropriate to the character of the service he had rendered. Issuance of Directive 5210.9 shortly thereafter by the Secretary of Defense, which applied to military personnel the criteria of the civilian security program, resulted in review of petitioner Harmon\u27s case and his discharge as undesirable. While the record is not clear, petitioner Abramowitz apparently was discharged as undesirable under similar circumstances. After exhausting administrative remedies, petitioners brought suit seeking a declaration that their discharges were void and an order that the discharges be changed to honorable. Concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the action, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the Army, and the court of appeals affirmed. On certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, held, reversed, one justice dissenting. In a per curiam opinion the Court ruled that the district court had jurisdiction to determine whether the Secretary of the Army had exceeded his statutory authority in basing the discharge classification on conduct antedating induction, and petitioners had standing to bring this action. On the merits, the secretary may consider only a soldier\u27s military record; hence the secretary\u27s action was in excess of his statutory authority and the case should be remanded to the district court for relief to petitioners. Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 579 (1958)

Civil Procedure - Process - Immunity from Service of Nonresident Entering State to Discuss Settlement of a Dispute

Defendant, a resident of Idaho, leased a service station in Idaho from plaintiff, a Utah corporation. Plaintiff\u27s attorney travelled to Idaho to attempt settlement of difficulties which had arisen concerning the lease. When the Idaho negotiations failed, plaintiff invited defendant to make further attempts at settlement in Utah. Defendant accepted the proposal and, when the Utah negotiations proved unfruitful, defendant was served with process in Utah at plaintiff\u27s request. It was undisputed that defendant went to Utah solely to effect settlement, returning directly to Idaho after cessation of negotiations. On appeal from the trial court\u27s denial of defendant\u27s motion to quash service, held, reversed, one judge dissenting. Actual fraudulent intent in inducing a defendant to enter a state is not necessary to invalidate service of process on such defendant. When defendant was invited into the state to discuss settlement of a dispute and came for that sole purpose, he was not subject to service of civil process in the absence of notice by the party extending the invitation that he would be served with process if the attempted settlement failed. Western States Refining Co. v. Berry, (Utah 1957) 313 P. (2d) 480

Municipal Corporations - Contracts - Ratification and Estoppel in Contracts Made By Unauthorized Agent

Plaintiff\u27s infant daughter, admitted to Newark City Hospital as an emergency case, received hospitalization and medical treatment worth $1,190 during her seventy-day period of confinement. The medical director of the hospital had made an agreement with the Hospital Service Plan of New Jersey which provided that regardless of the amount or quality of the hospitalization required, payment of the flat sum of$100 for any subscriber-patient would constitute payment in full to the city. The city accepted the $100 check paid by the Plan as billed by the hospital for the care of the child. In order to facilitate settlement with the person whose alleged negligence had caused his daughter\u27s injuries, by removing the city\u27s hospital lien for the balance of the charges for treatment, plaintiff sued for a declaratory judgment absolving him of any liability to the city. The real contest having evolved between the city and the Plan, the trial court rendered judgment for the Plan ordering cancellation of the lien. On certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court, held, affirmed, one justice dissenting without opinion. Even assuming that the medical director was without authorization to consummate the agreement, the city is bound by its subsequent course of conduct which impliedly ratified the contract, and is also estopped to deny its validity. Johnson v. Hospital Service Plan of N.J., (N.J. 1957) 135 A. (2d) 483

Index.

Patent for "an improved method of indexing books of reference, and more especially city and county records, and the means for carrying over from one line to another where several indexes are to be set opposite one name" (lines 9-14)

Atomic Energy - Uranium Procurement - Legal Aspects of the AEC Domestic Ore Purchase Program

The federal government\u27s domestic uranium ore procurement program, initially announced following World War II to ensure maximum exploration and development for military purposes, has met with extraordinary success. So improved is this country\u27s military uranium picture that the Atomic Energy Commission was recently able to announce that uranium concentrate purchases would not be further increased. This announcement is viewed as a matter .of serious concern by the domestic ore producer, who must continue to look to the federal government as his sole market; a noticeable private market for peaceful uses of atomic energy fuels may not be realized for more than a decade. It becomes apparent that with the government market no longer unlimited, competition among producers and controversies with the AEC can be expected to grow more frequent and intense. Harbingers of such. developments are already on the scene. The first judicial decision interpreting language in the government\u27s guaranteed price circulars-Radium Mines, Inc. v. United States-was handed down a few months ago. It is anticipated that increasing competition and controversy will mean a correspondingly increased inspection and critical analysis of these price circulars, which at times are confusingly or improperly drafted. This comment is. designed to examine the legal and practical problems raised by these guarantees, with the anticipation that these problems may appear with considerably greater frequency in federal courts in the span of lean years before a substantial private market for uranium ore develops