Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Childs v. Schlitz

Childs v. Schlitz, 556 F.2d 1178 (4th Cir. 1977)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1977-06-22
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: Given immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 and required to testify in a criminal case, Lester Matz and Jerome B. Wolff, both professional engineers, asserted in the district court that the Maryland Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors could not properly consider such testimony in determining whether to revoke their licenses to practice their profession. To do so, they assert, would violate their rights under the fifth amendment and the protection afforded by the federal immunity statute. In a well reasoned opinion, the district court correctly rejected plaintiffs’ contentions. Childs v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Childs v. Schlitz. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
CHILDS v. SCHLITZ,556 F.2d 1178(4th Cir. 1977)
JOHN C. CHILDS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS, LESTER MATZ AND JEROME B. WOLFF,
APPELLANTS v. PAUL R. SCHLITZ, CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, INDIVIDUALLY, AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, ET AL.,
APPELLEES.
No. 76-2417.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 7, 1977.
Decided June 22, 1977.
Page 1179
Paul F. Strain, Baltimore, Md. (Arnold M. Weiner and J. Frederick Motz, Baltimore, Md., on brief) for appellants.

Robert J. Aumiller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. Jon F. Oster, Deputy Atty. Gen. of Md., Baltimore, Md., on brief) for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Before WINTER, BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Given immunity under18 U.S.C. § 6002and required to testify in a criminal case, Lester Matz and Jerome B. Wolff, both professional engineers, asserted in the district court that the Maryland Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors could not properly consider such testimony in determining whether to revoke their licenses to practice their profession. To do so, they assert, would violate their rights under the fifth amendment and the protection afforded by the federal immunity statute.

[2] In a well reasoned opinion, the district court correctly rejected plaintiffs' contentions.Childs v. McCord,420 F. Supp. 428(D.Md. 1976). We adopt the opinion as our own and affirm the judgment.

[3]AFFIRMED.Page 398