United States v. Robert Young and Mrs. Lillian Young

Seventh Circuit

United States v. Robert Young and Mrs. Lillian Young

219 F.2d 108

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 1955

Docket10947

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 F.2d 108 (United States v. Robert Young and Mrs. Lillian Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Robert Young and Mrs. Lillian Young, 219 F.2d 108 (7th Cir. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.

Proceedings instituted by the United States under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1891 et seq. culminated in a judgment against these defendants on February 7, 1952. They were ordered to restore $5,479.06 to various tenants and pay plaintiff damages of $4,181.12. By their post-judgment motion, filed February 20, 1952, defendants sought a new trial or, in the alternative, relief from that judgment under Rule 60, Fed. R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A.

*109 Our holding in Fine v. Paramount Pictures, 7 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 300 supports the trial judge’s denial of that tardy motion for a new trial. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 59(b), 28 U.S.C.A. We find no reversible error impairing the judgment entered March 20, 1953, from which this appeal has been taken.

The final judgment, entered February 7, 1952, easily survives defendants’ futile collateral attack. We refrain, despite defendants’ suggestion to the contrary, from exploring the 1952 judgment under the guise of reviewing the one entered in 1953. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 1923, 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362; Saenz v. Kenedy, 5 Cir., 1950, 178 F.2d 417. Since the district judge’s memorandum, filed below, adequately disposes of defendants’ tenuous arguments, it is unnecessary for us to burden this opinion with detailed rejections of defendants’ points.

Judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

FINNEGAN, Circuit Judge.

Proceedings instituted by the United States under the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.App. § 1891 et seq. culminated in a judgment against these defendants on February 7, 1952. They were ordered to restore $5,479.06 to various tenants and pay plaintiff damages of $4,181.12. By their post-judgment motion, filed February 20, 1952, defendants sought a new trial or, in the alternative, relief from that judgment under Rule 60, Fed. R.Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A.

*109 Our holding in Fine v. Paramount Pictures, 7 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 300 supports the trial judge’s denial of that tardy motion for a new trial. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 59(b), 28 U.S.C.A. We find no reversible error impairing the judgment entered March 20, 1953, from which this appeal has been taken.

The final judgment, entered February 7, 1952, easily survives defendants’ futile collateral attack. We refrain, despite defendants’ suggestion to the contrary, from exploring the 1952 judgment under the guise of reviewing the one entered in 1953. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 1923, 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362; Saenz v. Kenedy, 5 Cir., 1950, 178 F.2d 417. Since the district judge’s memorandum, filed below, adequately disposes of defendants’ tenuous arguments, it is unnecessary for us to burden this opinion with detailed rejections of defendants’ points.

Judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 F.2d 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-robert-young-and-mrs-lillian-young-ca7-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack