Viewing page 168 of 175

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

-166-

and (2) title to the specimen under various theories of law.  On December 27, 1977, the Federal District Court ruled, denying the preliminary injunction and vacating the temporary restraining order. The federal parties are attempting to negotiate a loan arrangement with plaintiffs whereby the meteorite ultimately will be on long-term loan in California for public exhibition. The Smithsonian Institution and the Department of the Interior are being represented by the Department of Justice.

7.   There have been no recent developments in the following cases, which have been reported previously to the Board:

[[underlined]] Benima [[/underlined]] v. [[underlined]] Smithsonian Institution [[/underlined]] (age discrimination)

[[underlined]] Bowler [[/underlined]] v. [[underlined]] Ripley [[/underlined]] (racial discrimination)

[[underlined]] Chedister [[/underlined]] v. [[underlined]] United States [[/underlined]] (termination of employment)

[[underlined]] Foster [[/underlined]] v. [[underlined]] Ripley [[/underlined]] (termination of employment)

[[underlined]] Morrissette [[/underlined]] v. [[underlined]] United States [[/underlined]] (contract action)

[[underlined]] Precure [[/underlined]] v. [[underlined]] United States [[/underlined]] (tort claim - false arrest, malicious prosecution, etc.)

[[underlined]] United States [[/underlined]] v. [[underlined]] Tougas [[/underlined]] (to recover proceeds of sales of federal excess property)

Petition of the United States on behalf and for the benefit of the Smithsonian Institution, Trustee (interpretation of Johnson gift)


[[underlined]] Cases Disposed Of [[/underlined]]

[[underlined]] Living Window ICC, Inc., and Joseph Etelman [[/underlined]] v. [[underlined]] James S. Ward, Inc., James S. Ward and the Smithsonian Institution [[/underlined]]

This suit, filed October 1975, in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia by a subcontractor against the contractor, James S. Ward, Inc., and the Smithsonian Institution, arose out of the termination of a (federal) subcontract to construct an optical dissolve device for the National Museum of History and Technology.  An order was entered by the court on September 20, 1977, dismissing the action against the Smithsonian on the grounds that jurisdiction of the claim against the Smithsonian lies exclusively in the Court of Claims.  The time for appeal of this order has lapsed, and the suit has not been refiled in the Court of Claims to date.