Jack A. Gullo v. Miriam Anne Hirst and Quin S. Elson

Fourth Circuit

Jack A. Gullo v. Miriam Anne Hirst and Quin S. Elson

332 F.2d 178, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5512

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 29, 1964

Docket9285_1

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 332 F.2d 178 (Jack A. Gullo v. Miriam Anne Hirst and Quin S. Elson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jack A. Gullo v. Miriam Anne Hirst and Quin S. Elson, 332 F.2d 178, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5512 (4th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We approve the ultimate disposition of this case made by the district court. Not only is the matter which the plaintiff sought to litigate in the district court res judicata, but it is also true that the federal courts have never assumed to exercise jurisdiction over domestic relations causes. Finally, the cause is not a proper subject for declaratory judgment.

The background of this case raises serious questions of abuse of process. While we must be careful to assure that the courts are always open to complaining parties, we have an equal obligation to see that its processes are not abused by harassing, or by recklessly invoking court action in frivolous causes or by foot dragging and delaying in order to deny or postpone the enjoyment of unquestioned rights. Lawyers have an obligation as officers of the court not to indulge in any of these practices. Vexatious litigation and the law’s delays have brought the courts in low repute in many instances, and when the responsibility can be fixed, remedial action should be taken.

We remand this case to the district court with instructions that it tax the plaintiff with reasonable counsel fees for the defendants’ attorneys and that it visit a proper sanction upon the plaintiff’s counsel.

Remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We approve the ultimate disposition of this case made by the district court. Not only is the matter which the plaintiff sought to litigate in the district court res judicata, but it is also true that the federal courts have never assumed to exercise jurisdiction over domestic relations causes. Finally, the cause is not a proper subject for declaratory judgment.

The background of this case raises serious questions of abuse of process. While we must be careful to assure that the courts are always open to complaining parties, we have an equal obligation to see that its processes are not abused by harassing, or by recklessly invoking court action in frivolous causes or by foot dragging and delaying in order to deny or postpone the enjoyment of unquestioned rights. Lawyers have an obligation as officers of the court not to indulge in any of these practices. Vexatious litigation and the law’s delays have brought the courts in low repute in many instances, and when the responsibility can be fixed, remedial action should be taken.

We remand this case to the district court with instructions that it tax the plaintiff with reasonable counsel fees for the defendants’ attorneys and that it visit a proper sanction upon the plaintiff’s counsel.

Remanded.

Walter Lloyd Blair v. Shenandoah Women's Center, Inc. Barbara Kukla Janis Christopher Berkeley County Board of Education Martinsburg City Police Department Officer Danny Lyons Officer John Doe No. 1 Officer John Doe No. 2 Debbie Stubberfield Miss Melissa Butts Ms. Dana "Doe" United Way and the State of West Virginia, in Re Gene D. Bennett, Michael D. Bennett, Genele D. Bennett, Next Best Friend, Gene D. Bennett v. Shenandoah Women's Center, Inc.

757 F.2d 1435 (Fourth Circuit, 1985)

Blair v. Shenandoah Women's Center, Inc.

757 F.2d 1435 (Fourth Circuit, 1985)

John Doe and Ann Smith Doe v. Jane Doe, on Behalf of Her Son, Jack Doe

660 F.2d 101 (Fourth Circuit, 1981)

Scott v. United States

475 F. Supp. 20 (W.D. Tennessee, 1979)

Cherry v. Cherry

438 F. Supp. 88 (D. Maryland, 1977)

In the Matter of Samuel A. Bithoney

486 F.2d 319 (First Circuit, 1973)

Habib v. Keats

286 A.2d 854 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1972)

Robert C. Kriesel v. Berkshire Associates, Inc. v. Robert C. Kriesel, Cross-Appellant v. Berkshire Associates, Inc., Cross-Appellees

452 F.2d 491 (Fourth Circuit, 1971)

Gullo v. Brown

483 P.2d 293 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1971)

Gullo v. Hirst

207 A.2d 662 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1965)

Charles E. Williams v. Honorable Oren R. Lewis, United States District Judge. Charles E. Williams v. Howard Johnson's Inc. Of Washington

342 F.2d 727 (Fourth Circuit, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 F.2d 178, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jack-a-gullo-v-miriam-anne-hirst-and-quin-s-elson-ca4-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack