Mastrocola v. Acheson

2 Citing cases

  1. Peduzzi v. Brownell

    113 F. Supp. 419 (D.D.C. 1953)   Cited 1 times

    I am aware that Judge Kaufman, of the Southern District of New York, and Judge Kirkland, of this court, for whose opinions I have high regard, have recently expressed the view that this statute was not tolled, but their decisions were not predicated on such view, and I have not been convinced of its correctness. Mastrocola v. Acheson, D.C., 105 F.Supp. 580; Gaudio v. Dulles, D.C., 110 F.Supp. 706.          Also, the fact that a later Congress did not extend the statute in question, although the opportunity to do so was presented to it, does not persuade me, as contended by defendants, that it was the intention of the earlier Congress to restrict the period of limitation without regard to war.

  2. Gaudio v. Dulles

    110 F. Supp. 706 (D.D.C. 1953)   Cited 3 times

    The inevitable suggestion to be derived from such testimony is that the Act was in a temporary state of suspension during those years. A like defense was offered in the case of Mastrocola v. Acheson, D.C., 105 F. Supp. 580, 582, and the court held such claim was without merit in that legislative records indicated that the statute did not toll. In support of this position, note is taken of the Congressional attitude when an occasion to alleviate this result was offered.