Ex parte Poresky. No. ___, Original

Decision Date06 November 1933
Citation78 L.Ed. 152,290 U.S. 30,54 S.Ct. 3
PartiesEx parte PORESKY. No. ___, Original
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Joseph Poresky, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Leave is asked to file a petition for a writ of mandamus requiring District Judge Elisha H. Brewster, or other competent judge, to call to his assistance two other judges for the purpose of hearing and determining petitioner's application for an interlocutory injunction, as directed by statute. Jud. Code § 266, 28 U.S.C. § 380 (28 USCA § 380).

Petitioner brought suit in the District Court of the United States against Joseph E. Ely, Governor, Joseph E. Warner, Attorney General, and Morgan T. Ryan, Registrar of Motor Vehicles, of Massachusetts, to enjoin the enforcement of chapter 90, § 34A et seq., of the General Laws (Ter. Ed.) of Massa chusetts relating to 'compulsory automobile liability insurance,' upon the ground that the statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Petitioner alleged in his complaint that he is a citizen of Massachusetts; that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles had refused registration and number plates for his car unless he complied with the statute, under which he 'must first post either bond or cash of $5,000, or procure insurance'; that the statute 'is only applicable to cars owned and operated within the State and does not include cars in interstate traffic'; that he cannot comply with the statute; that to disregard it would bring him fine and imprisonment; that he has no adequate remedy at law; and that his inability to comply with the statute 'is the Registrar's only reason for refusing him registration and number plates.'

The District Judge dismissed the complaint as to Governor Ely and Attorney General Warner upon the ground that they were improperly joined as parties, and later he dismissed the complaint as to the defendant Ryan, Registrar of Motor Vehicles, for the want of jurisdiction, as there was no diversity of citizenship and no substantial federal question.

The District Judge recognized the rule that if the court was warranted in taking jurisdiction and the case fell within section 266 of the Judicial Code (28 USCA § 380), a single judge was not authorized to dismiss the complaint on the merits, whatever his opinion of the merits might be. Ex parte Northern Pacific Railway Co., 280 U.S. 142, 144, 50 S.Ct. 70, 74 L.Ed. 233; Stratton v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co., 282 U.S. 10, 15, 51 S.Ct. 8, 75 L.Ed. 135. But the provision requiring the presence of a court of three judges necessarily assumes that the District Court has jurisdiction. In the absence of diversity of citizenship, it is essential to jurisdiction that a substantial federal question should be presented. 'A substantial claim of unconstitutionality is necessary for the application of section 266.' Ex parte Buder 271 U.S. 461, 467, 46 S.Ct. 557, 559, 70 L.Ed. 1036; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Garrett, 231 U.S. 298, 304, 34 S.Ct. 48, 58 L.Ed. 229. That provision does not require three judges to pass upon this initial question of jurisdiction.

The existence of a substantial question of constitutionality must be determined by the allegations of the bill of complaint. Mosher v. City of Phoenix, 287 U.S. 29, 30, 53 S.Ct. 67, 77 L.Ed. 148; Levering & Garrigues Co. v. Morrin, 289 U.S. 103, 105, 53 S.Ct. 549, 550, 77 L.Ed....

To continue reading

Request your trial
595 cases
  • Filipino Accountants' Assn. v. State Bd. of Accountancy
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 25, 1984
    ...Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 US 285, 288 [54 LEd 482, 30 SCt 326, 327] (1910); and "obviously without merit," Ex parte Poresky, 290 US 30, 32 [78 LEd 152, 54 SCt 3, 4] (1933). The limiting words "wholly" and "obviously" have cogent legal significance. In the context of the effect......
  • Maloney v. Sheehan
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • June 27, 1978
    ...leave no room for the inference that the questions sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.'" Ex parte Poresky 290 U.S. 30, 32 54 S.Ct. 3, at 4, 78 L.Ed. 152 (1933), quoting from Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore 216 U.S. 285, 288 30 S.Ct. 326, 54 L.Ed. 482 (1910); see also L......
  • Epstein v. Lordi
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • December 14, 1966
    ...7 L.Ed.2d 512 (1961) past cases had established the unconstitutionality of the state laws on their face. And see Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 54 S.Ct. 3, 78 L.Ed. 152 (1933) challenge to state law's constitutionality was insubstantial on its face. The possibility of applying this doctrine......
  • Hartman v. Switzer, Civ. A. No. 73-788.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • May 21, 1974
    ...district court. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794 (1962); Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 54 S.Ct. 3, 78 L. Ed. 152 (1933); Majuri v. United States, 431 F.2d 469 (3 Cir. 1970) cert. den. 400 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 245, 27 L. Ed.2d 248 (1970);......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT