Patterson v. City of Newport News
This text of 364 F.2d 816 (Patterson v. City of Newport News) 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.
Opinion
The plaintiffs sought damages based upon allegations of a wrongful taking of two lots of land and a house in Newport News, Virginia. They claim violations of their constitutional rights and of the procedural requirements of certain statutes.
An area, several city blocks in size, in Newport News, Virginia, had been acquired or condemned by the Newport News Redevelopment and Housing Authority upon a basis of a determination that the area was blighted and deteriorating, and that acquisition of the property was necessary for replanning, rehabilitation and reconstruction. Subsequently, a portion of the acquired area, including the two lots theretofore owned by the plaintiffs, was conveyed to the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company for development and use as an automobile parking area.1
The plaintiffs resisted the condemnation proceedings in the state court. They asserted there the constitutional claims advanced here, including the claim that the Authority had no right to condemn their lots for subsequent sale to the shipyard. From an adverse determination of the trial court, they sought a writ of error in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. Upon its denial, they sought review in the Supreme Court of the United States, but it dismissed [818]*818the purported appeal and denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.2
Thereafter, this action for damages was commenced in the District Court, and dismissed.
We must affirm. The state condemnation court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and of the parties, and issues tendered here were not only properly litigable there, they were in fact litigated there. That judgment having become final with the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal and denial of certiorari, it is not subject to relitigation in the lower federal courts. Lavasek v. White, 10 Cir., 339 F.2d 861. See, also, Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 67 S.Ct. 657, 91 L.Ed. 832; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362; Norman Lumber Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 223 F. 2d 868; and Dairy Distributors, Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters, 10 Cir., 294 F.2d 348.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
364 F.2d 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-city-of-newport-news-ca4-1966.