Kenneth SUED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack ADDINGTON Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Ninth Circuit

Kenneth SUED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack ADDINGTON Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

465 F.2d 889

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 6, 1972

Docket71-2379

StatusPublished

This text of 465 F.2d 889 (Kenneth SUED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack ADDINGTON Et Al., Defendants-Appellees) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kenneth SUED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack ADDINGTON Et Al., Defendants-Appellees, 465 F.2d 889 (9th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Contending that his employment by the State of Alaska was terminated as the result of a conspiracy founded upon racial discrimination, appellant has brought suit against the alleged conspirators under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. C. § 1981 et seq. The District Court found that appellant had failed to prove that his discharge was due to racial discrimination. The findings were not clearly erroneous.

The District Court further found that appellant’s claims were frivolous and that his counsel had so vexatiously multiplied proceedings as to increase costs. It held appellees entitled to costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in the sum of $100. Upon this record this did not constitute abuse of discretion.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Contending that his employment by the State of Alaska was terminated as the result of a conspiracy founded upon racial discrimination, appellant has brought suit against the alleged conspirators under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S. C. § 1981 et seq. The District Court found that appellant had failed to prove that his discharge was due to racial discrimination. The findings were not clearly erroneous.

The District Court further found that appellant’s claims were frivolous and that his counsel had so vexatiously multiplied proceedings as to increase costs. It held appellees entitled to costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in the sum of $100. Upon this record this did not constitute abuse of discretion.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

465 F.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-sued-plaintiff-appellant-v-jack-addington-et-al-ca9-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack