George v. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

5th Cir.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Citations: 788 F.2d 1115, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24786

Decision Date: 5/5/1986

Docket Number: No. 85-2758

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: George v. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 788 F.2d 1115, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 24786 (5th Cir. 1986)

More Cases: 5th Cir. decisions from 1986

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 86 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

E.D. La.22

5th Cir.14

W.D. La.13

M.D. La.12

S.D. Miss.8

E.D. Tex.4

Most recently cited by10

2026Atlantic Maritime Services, LLC v. Ecopetrol America, LLC et al. E.D. La.
2026Varnado E.D. La.
2026Gautreaux M.D. La.
2026Bernard M.D. La.
2026Robinson N.D. Miss.
2026Bradley E.D. La.
2026Moss S.D. Tex.
2026Sam Jackson v. Volunteers of America, Inc., et al. E.D. La.
2026Kim W. Jackson v. Post Office Employees Credit Union, ET AL. W.D. La.
2026Harold E.D. La.

Cites 1 case

C & L Farms, Inc. v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Charles A. GEORGE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants-Ap-pellees.

Attorneys

Charles A. George, pro se.
Henry K. Oncken, U.S. Atty., Nancy K. Pecht, James R. Gough, Linda M. Cipriani, Frank A. Conforti, Asst. U.S. Attys., Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellees.

majority PER CURIAM:

The district court enjoys a broad discretion in determining whether to dismiss an action for ineffective service of process, as it did in this instance. C & L Farms v. Federal Crop Insurance Corp., 771 F.2d 407 (8th Cir.1985). It is undisputed that in this attempted action against the United States, the appellant failed to serve the Attorney General, as required by Rule 4(d)(4), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In view of this, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

AFFIRMED.