542 F.2d 688 (6th Cir. 1976), 75-1665, Smith v. Martin

Docket Nº:75-1665.
Citation:542 F.2d 688
Party Name:James W. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles MARTIN et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Case Date:October 12, 1976
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 688

542 F.2d 688 (6th Cir. 1976)

James W. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Charles MARTIN et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 75-1665.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

October 12, 1976

        Argued Dec. 10, 1975.

Page 689

        Howell W. Vincent, Covington, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant.

        James F. Clay, Clay & Clay, Danville, Ky., for Charles Martin and Stanford Wood Products.

        Harbison, Kessinger, Lisle & Bush, Lexington, Ky., Clay & Marye, Mount Sterling, Ky., for Joe Hanson and Florsheim.

        James S. Carroll, Lexington, Ky., James G. Sheehan, Jr., Danville, Ky., for Citizens National Bank and Ebb Bell.

        William E. Hensley, Corbin, Ky., for Tom Alexander and Tom Alexander, Inc.

        C. R. Luker, London, Ky., for First National Bank of London, Ky., and Don Edwards.

        Lester Burns, Burnside, Ky., for Robert Cato and O. D. Bruner.

        J. Milton Luker, London, Ky., for Corabelle Driskill and Robert L. Milby.

        Roy E. Tooms, Brown & Tooms, London, Ky., for Second National Bank of London, Ky., and Warren Little.

        Coleman Moberly, London, Ky., for Elden F. Keller and Harriett Keller.

        B. Robert Stivers, London, Ky., for Elsie Doyle, Glenn Doyle and William H. Bowling.

        Grant F. Knuckles, James S. Wilson, Pineville, Ky., for Robert H. Helton, Jr.

        Burns & Mitchell, Somerset, Ky., for defendants-appellees.

        Before EDWARDS, CELEBREZZE and McCREE, Circuit Judges.

        PER CURIAM.

        We consider an appeal from summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Robert H. Helton, Jr. on the grounds of judicial immunity, and from an order dismissing the complaint against the remaining 22 defendants because of plaintiff-appellant's lack of standing to maintain the action. The action was brought under 28

Page 690

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1988 for two million dollars damages against 23 defendants who were charged with conspiring to deprive plaintiff and his clothing and apparel business of the equal protection of the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and of the laws of the United States of America. It charged that the conspiracy was accomplished, inter alia, by filing false complaints in the state circuit court with the result that orders were issued restraining plaintiff from entering his place of business which was padlocked by court order. These and other calamitous consequences resulted...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP