Claude Benboe, D. E. Smith and Johnson Bonding Co., Inc., Plaintiffs v. Julian M. Carroll, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky

625 F.2d 737, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17746
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMay 8, 1980
Docket78-3194
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 625 F.2d 737 (Claude Benboe, D. E. Smith and Johnson Bonding Co., Inc., Plaintiffs v. Julian M. Carroll, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Claude Benboe, D. E. Smith and Johnson Bonding Co., Inc., Plaintiffs v. Julian M. Carroll, as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 625 F.2d 737, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17746 (6th Cir. 1980).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is an appeal from an action brought before Judge Charles Allen in the United States District Court for the West-, era District of Kentucky. Plaintiffs, who were professional bail bondsmen in Kentucky prior to July 6, 1976, entered still another challenge before Judge Allen to the constitutionality of Ky.Rev.Stat. § 431.510 et seq. by which statute the State of Kentucky abolished the commercial bail bond system in Kentucky, substituting therefor a state system for the furnishing of bail bonds and making it unlawful for anyone other than those authorized by the statute to furnish bail bonds or property as a bond.

*738 This is the fifth such effort on the part of Kentucky bail bondsmen and every issue except one sought to be presented here has been presented and finally disposed of by judgments in the Supreme Court of Kentucky and the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky prior to the decision of this case. See Stephens v. Bonding Association of Kentucky, 538 S.W.2d 580 (Ky.1976), and Johnson Bonding Co., Inc. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 420 F.Supp. 331 (E.D.Ky.1976). The issue not presented in prior litigation concerns appellants’ contention that the legislation attacked here is a Bill of Attainder.

For the reasons effectively spelled out by Judge Allen in his memorandum opinion, dated June 15, 1977, we agree that this contention has no constitutional merit. The judgment of the District Court is, in all respects, affirmed on the reasoning of said memorandum opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pempek v. Edgar
603 F. Supp. 495 (N.D. Illinois, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
625 F.2d 737, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 17746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claude-benboe-d-e-smith-and-johnson-bonding-co-inc-plaintiffs-v-ca6-1980.