Joseph A. Weiss v. Robert M. Morgenthau, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York

Second Circuit

Joseph A. Weiss v. Robert M. Morgenthau, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York

355 F.2d 933

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 1966

Docket30067_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 355 F.2d 933 (Joseph A. Weiss v. Robert M. Morgenthau, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph A. Weiss v. Robert M. Morgenthau, as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, 355 F.2d 933 (2d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The main thrust of this action is based upon a claim that Robert M. Morgenthau, the defendant, had no authority in law or in fact to appear for and defend Judge Bonsai in another action brought by plaintiff against Judge Bonsai affecting matters ruled upon by him as a United States District Judge. We disposed of this contention on plaintiff’s last appeal from a judgment dismissing his complaint. Weiss v. Morgenthau, 2 Cir., 1965, 344 F.2d 428. The complaint in Weiss v. Bonsai was also dismissed because of plaintiff’s wilful refusal to submit to a pretrial deposition, following our action allowing plaintiff a further opportunity to appear and testify. Weiss v. Bonsal, 2 Cir., 1965, 344 F.2d 428. The appeal to this Court from the judgment of dismissal in Weiss v. Bonsal was dismissed on October 6, 1965 as frivolous and devoid of merit, and the petition for rehearing was denied on November 12, 1965. As the issues have already been fully explored and decided, despite the verbal characterizations so freely used by plaintiff, we have no alternative other than to dismiss this appeal also as frivolous and devoid of merit.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The main thrust of this action is based upon a claim that Robert M. Morgenthau, the defendant, had no authority in law or in fact to appear for and defend Judge Bonsai in another action brought by plaintiff against Judge Bonsai affecting matters ruled upon by him as a United States District Judge. We disposed of this contention on plaintiff’s last appeal from a judgment dismissing his complaint. Weiss v. Morgenthau, 2 Cir., 1965, 344 F.2d 428. The complaint in Weiss v. Bonsai was also dismissed because of plaintiff’s wilful refusal to submit to a pretrial deposition, following our action allowing plaintiff a further opportunity to appear and testify. Weiss v. Bonsal, 2 Cir., 1965, 344 F.2d 428. The appeal to this Court from the judgment of dismissal in Weiss v. Bonsal was dismissed on October 6, 1965 as frivolous and devoid of merit, and the petition for rehearing was denied on November 12, 1965. As the issues have already been fully explored and decided, despite the verbal characterizations so freely used by plaintiff, we have no alternative other than to dismiss this appeal also as frivolous and devoid of merit.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 F.2d 933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-a-weiss-v-robert-m-morgenthau-as-us-attorney-for-the-southern-ca2-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack