Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GINSBURG v. STERN

December 18, 1956

Paul GINSBURG, Plaintiff,
v.
Horace STERN, Allen M. Stearne, Charles Alvin Jones, John C. Bell, Jr., Thomas McKeen Chidsey, Michael A. Musmanno, and John C. Arnold, individually and jointly as Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Defendants



The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCILVAINE

The plaintiff in this case has filed suit against the defendants individually and jointly as Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and seeks jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to the Civil Rights Acts, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986.

He alleges that he is a practicing lawyer, and a member in good standing of the Bars of the Courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the United States District Court.

 His complaint is separated into three causes of action:

 In the first cause of action he alleges that the defendants arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and illegally entered orders quashing an appeal of his in the Courts of Pennsylvania contrary to the provisions of the Act of June 16, 1836, P.L. 784, 17 P.S.Pa. § 41.

 The second cause of action alleges that he filed a suit against certain persons alleging a conspiracy to cheat and defraud him. This suit was dismissed by the Common Pleas Court. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Ginsburg v. Halpern, 383 Pa. 178, 118 A.2d 201. However, he alleges that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania refused to permit him to limit the contents on an appeal of the printed record before them and alleges that such action was arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal, thus depriving him of his rights. He further alleges that the requirement of printing the entire record would have cost him an exorbitant amount of money, and the order denying same deprives him of his rights. He alleges that he petitioned for reconsideration of the court's order but same was denied. He alleges that all of the Acts were effected in combination, confederation, and joint agreement of the defendants to deprive him of his substantive and procedural rights under the law.

 Since the complaint has been filed the following motions have been filed on behalf of the parties to the action which have not been disposed of. They are as follows:

 (1) by defendants, under Rule 12, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A., to dismiss the action because the complaint fails to state a claim against defendants upon which relief can be granted;

 (2) by defendants, under Rule 12, to dismiss the action on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction because the action is between citizens of the same state and the alleged federal questions are frivolous, chimerical, and unsubstantial;

 (3) by defendants, under Rule 12, to strike the complaint as contemptuous, impertinent, and scandalous;

 (4) by defendants, to strike the complaint as sham and false, as contemptuous, and filed with intent to defeat the purpose of Rule 11;

 (5) by defendants, to vacate and set aside plaintiff's notice of the taking of defendants' depositions and to enter an order that defendants' depositions be not taken, for the reasons that the taking of such depositions would obstruct the administration of justice, is sought for the sole purpose of annoying, harrassing, and molesting defendants and not in good faith, would impose upon defendants undue annoyance and inconvenience, could reasonably inquire only into matters that are privileged, would not furnish support to the complaint, and is premature;

 (6) by plaintiff, to require counsel for defendants to file 'written explanatory statement' of what good ground exists to support defendants' motions referred to in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 above.

 The most basic motion filed is that of the defendants in which they ask that the complaint be dismissed because it fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Should this motion be granted, the other motions would become moot. However, should ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.