HOPFMANN ET AL.
v.
CONNOLLY ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A summary disposition dismissing an appeal for want of jurisdiction, unlike a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question, has no precedential effect on the merits.
Plaintiff challenged a state political party's rule under the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals relied on prior Supreme Court summary dispositions…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Precedential Effect cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, the petition is granted.
Hopfmann filed this action in the Federal District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging a provision in the Charter of the Massachusetts Democratic Party. Among the theories he advanced was a claim that the provision, as enforced by Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 53, §§1-121 (West 1975 and Supp. 1985), violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Relying on Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U. S. 332, 344 (1975), the Court of Appeals held that the claim was foreclosed by this Court’s summary disposition of two appeals from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Langone v. Connolly, 460 U. S. 1057 (1983). See 746 F. 2d 97, 100-101 (1984).
In Hicks, the Court explained the precedential effect of the dismissal “for want of [a] substantial federal question” in Miller v. California, 418 U. S. 915 (1974):
“[Miller] was an appeal from a decision by a state court upholding a state statute against federal constitutional attack. A federal constitutional issue was properly presented, it was within our appellate jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(2), and we had no discretion to refuse adjudication of the case on its merits as would have been true had the case been brought here under our certiorari jurisdiction. We were not obligated to grant the case plenary consideration, and we did not; but we were required to deal with its merits. We did so by concluding that the appeal should be dismissed because the constitutional challenge to the California statute was not a substantial one.” 422 U. S., at 343-344.
Because the Court had jurisdiction over the appeal in Miller, the dismissal involved a rejection of “the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction.” Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U. S. 173, 176 (1977) (per curiam).
On the other hand, the order disposing of the appeals in Langone read:
“Appeals from Sup. Jud. Ct. Mass, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeals were taken as petitions for writs of certiorari, certiorari denied. Reported below: 388 Mass. 185, 446 N. E. 2d 43 .” 460 U. S., at 1057 (emphasis added).
Because the Court dismissed the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction, we had no occasion to adjudicate the merits of the constitutional questions presented in the jurisdictional statements. Nor did the denial of certiorari have any prec-edential effect. See Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U. S. 912, 919 (1950) (opinion of Frankfurter, J., respecting denial of the petition for certiorari).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated to the extent it relied on the dismissal of the appeals in Langone, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (U.S. 1995)…the primary to secure a place on the general ballot or otherwise demonstrate substantial community support.” Ibid. See also Joyner v. Mofford, 706 F. 2d, at 1531; Hopfmann v. Connolly, 746 F. 2d 97, 103 (CA1 1984), vacated in part on other grounds, 471 U. S. 459 (1985). Petitioners maintain that, under Storer, Amendment 73 is not a qualification. We need not decide whether petitioners’ narrow understanding of qualifications is correct because, even if. it is, Amendment 73 may not stand. As we have often no…
-
United States v. Bishop, 959 F.2d 820 (9th Cir. 1992)…ue of this Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals decision is negligible: the Supreme Court repeatedly has stated that its denial of certiorari has no prece-dential effect and indicates nothing about the merits of a case. See, e.g., Hopfmann v. Connolly, 471 U.S. 459, 460, 105 S.Ct. 2106, 2107, 85 L.Ed.2d 469 (1985). . To establish a prima facie case, the defendant must illustrate "that he is a member of a cognizable racial group,” Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1722, that the prosecutor has removed membe…1 / 2
-
Wis. Dep't of Revenue v. Wrigley, 505 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1992)…80, 107 So. 2d 640 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U. S. 984 (1959). Although our refusals to disturb the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown-Forman and International Shoe did not themselves have any legal significance, see Hopfmann v. Connolly, 471 U. S. 459, 460-461 (1985); United States v. Carver, 260 U. S. 482, 490 (1923), our actions in those cases raised concerns that the broad language of Northwestern States might ultimately be read to suggest that a company whose only contacts with a State consis…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1975)
- Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1977)
- Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912 (U.S. 1950)
- Miller v. California, 418 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1974)
- Bellotti v. Connolly, 460 U.S. 1057 (U.S. 1983)
- Alwin E. Hopfmann v. Connolly, 746 F.2d 97 (1st Cir. 1984)