Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Long Beach TP.

Third Circuit

Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Long Beach TP.

77 F.2d 764, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4702

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 18, 1935

DocketNo. 5753

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 77 F.2d 764 (Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Long Beach TP.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel B. Frazier Co. v. Long Beach TP., 77 F.2d 764, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4702 (3d Cir. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the district of New Jersey striking a bill of complaint. It affirmatively appears from the bill that "the issues sought to be raised in the District Court had been decided adversely to the petitioner by the New Jersey Supreme Court, 161 A. 51, 10 N. J. Misc. 747, and the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, 110 N. J. Law, 221, 164 A. 278. The respondents move to dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, to affirm the order of the District Court.

Section 237 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 344) provides that an appeal from a decision of the highest court of the state involving constitutional questions shall be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. In Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362, the Supreme Court, in a similar case, affirmed a decree of the District Court which had dismissed a bill for want of jurisdiction. We restrict this opinion to a ruling that the District Court did not have jurisdiction and, on authority of Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., supra, affirm the order.

Order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court for the district of New Jersey striking a bill of complaint. It affirmatively appears from the bill that "the issues sought to be raised in the District Court had been decided adversely to the petitioner by the New Jersey Supreme Court, 161 A. 51, 10 N. J. Misc. 747, and the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals, 110 N. J. Law, 221, 164 A. 278. The respondents move to dismiss the appeal or, in the alternative, to affirm the order of the District Court.

Section 237 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 344) provides that an appeal from a decision of the highest court of the state involving constitutional questions shall be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. In Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362, the Supreme Court, in a similar case, affirmed a decree of the District Court which had dismissed a bill for want of jurisdiction. We restrict this opinion to a ruling that the District Court did not have jurisdiction and, on authority of Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., supra, affirm the order.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 F.2d 764, 1935 U.S. App. LEXIS 4702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-b-frazier-co-v-long-beach-tp-ca3-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack