National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees v. Nickerson

424 F. Supp. 323 (1976)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees v. Nickerson

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
424 F. Supp. 323 (1976)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

The National Credit Union Administration oversaw applications for federal credit-union charters. National Alliance of Postal and Federal Employees (National Alliance) (plaintiff) was a national labor organization. National Alliance had about 40,000 members. Most members were Black postal employees. National Alliance applied for a federal credit-union charter. The administrator (defendant) of the National Credit Union Administration denied National Alliance’s application. The administrator found that no common bond of association among National Alliance’s members existed and that there was a 100 percent overlap of National Alliance’s members with the already existing United States Postal Service Federal Credit Union. Essentially, the administrator concluded that National Alliance did not qualify for a charter based on a determination that the credit union would not be economically advisable because of the overlap. However, National Alliance met all of the standards for economic advisability included in the National Credit Union Administration’s organization manual, and the administrator did not rely on in-depth analysis or investigation regarding the probability of economic success. National Alliance appealed to the administrator, but the administrator affirmed his decision. However, the administrator did suggest that National Alliance apply for separate charters at the local or district level. Notably, multiple national groups had been granted charters in the past such as the National Association of Postmasters, the National Medical Association, and the International Arabian Horses Association. National Alliance sued the administrator, alleging that the denial of the charter application was arbitrary and capricious. The administrator conceded that a common bond exists among National Alliance’s members, but he argued that the extent and nature of the association was not sufficient for issuance of a charter. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Waddy, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership