Prevett v. New Hampshire Supreme Court

First Circuit

Prevett v. New Hampshire Supreme Court

120 F. App'x 843

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedFebruary 15, 2005

DocketNo. 04-2112

StatusPublished

This text of 120 F. App'x 843 (Prevett v. New Hampshire Supreme Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prevett v. New Hampshire Supreme Court, 120 F. App'x 843 (1st Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, pro se appellant Peter Prevett appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his suit, which challenged, [844]*844on equal protection grounds, the facial validity of a state bar admission rule, N.H. Sup.Ct. R. 42(10)(a)(ii), and the state supreme court’s reliance on the rule to deny his application for admission to the bar. In an order dated May 26, 2004, the district court dismissed the challenge to the state court’s denial of the appellant’s bar application based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In an order dated August 4, 2004, the court rejected the challenge to the facial validity of the rale, finding that there was no equal protection violation because the rale is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. After careful review of the record and the appellate filings, we affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its thoughtful decisions.

Affimed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, pro se appellant Peter Prevett appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his suit, which challenged, [844]*844on equal protection grounds, the facial validity of a state bar admission rule, N.H. Sup.Ct. R. 42(10)(a)(ii), and the state supreme court’s reliance on the rule to deny his application for admission to the bar. In an order dated May 26, 2004, the district court dismissed the challenge to the state court’s denial of the appellant’s bar application based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In an order dated August 4, 2004, the court rejected the challenge to the facial validity of the rale, finding that there was no equal protection violation because the rale is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. After careful review of the record and the appellate filings, we affirm, essentially for the reasons given by the district court in its thoughtful decisions.

Affimed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 F. App'x 843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prevett-v-new-hampshire-supreme-court-ca1-2005.