Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google
Scholar
on the Web
Google Web
Search
MSN Web
Search
Yahoo! Web
Search
in the News
Google News
Search
Google
News Archive Search
Yahoo!
News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com
Search
Google Blog
Search
Technorati Blog
Search
in other Databases
Google Book
Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
J. B. Hicks, Appellant, v. the Honorable H. Russel Holland, Circuit Judge, et al., Appellees
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit. - 235 F.2d 183
June 6, 1956 Writ of Certiorari Denied October 8, 1956
No appearance for appellant.
Edmund E. Shepherd, and Russell A. Searl, Lansing, Mich., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, MILLER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal, wherein appellant J. B. Hicks filed a brief and the appellees appeared by an Assistant Attorney General of the State of Michigan both in oral argument and by printed brief, has been duly considered; and the conclusion has been reached that United States District Judge Levin, sua sponte, properly dismissed the complaint for the reasons stated by him: namely, that the records of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan show that a complaint covering the same subject matter and parties had been dismissed by one of the judges of that court for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(h) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.; and that such dismissal on jurisdictional grounds brings the action within the principle of res judicata. W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc., 2 Cir., 186 F.2d 236; see also Ripperger v. A. C. Allyn & Co., 2 Cir., 113 F.2d 332.
On the merits of the case, the original order entered by United States District Judge Lederle was correct upon the authority of Kenney v. Fox (Kenney v. Hatfield), 6 Cir., 232 F.2d 288.
The judgment of the district court, dismissing the complaint, is therefore affirmed.