Piper v. Supreme Court of New Hampshire, C82-135-L.
Decision Date | 17 May 1982 |
Docket Number | No. C82-135-L.,C82-135-L. |
Citation | 539 F. Supp. 1064 |
Parties | Kathryn PIPER v. SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire |
H. Jon Meyer, Manchester, N. H., for plaintiff.
Martha V. Gordon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Concord, N. H., for defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The court has the following motions before it. Defendant's motion to dismiss, Supreme Court's motion to dismiss, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction which at the time of the hearing on May 6, 1982 is unfortunately moot. It has been agreed that the court can rule on one motion which is dispositive of all, that will be plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff Kathryn A. Piper is a resident of Lower Waterford, Vermont, less than 400 yards from the New Hampshire border, and is admitted to practice before the State Bar of Vermont and the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. Upon application to the New Hampshire Board of Bar Examiners for permission to sit for the February, 1980 New Hampshire Bar Examination, the Board found her to be of good moral character and to possess suitable qualifications, and accordingly granted her permission. She took the February 27-28, 1980 Bar Examination and on April 18, 1980 was advised that she had received a passing score and would be recommended by the Board of Bar Examiners for admission to the New Hampshire Bar. At the time of taking the examination, she filed a good faith statement of intent to reside in New Hampshire. She was informed by the Board of Bar Examiners that she must establish a home residence in New Hampshire in order to be admitted to the bar. She filed a request for an exception to the residency requirement which was denied by the supreme court. She then filed a formal petition to the supreme court to grant her an exception which was also denied. In consequence of defendants' action, plaintiff has been unable to practice law in New Hampshire and now faces the threat that she will be required to retake the bar exam pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42(8) requiring that applicants be admitted within two years of being notified of successful passage of the exam.
On July 25, 1979 plaintiff wrote to George Pappagianis, then Clerk of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, now a justice of the New Hampshire Superior Court. Part of the contents of the letter are as follows:
Succinctly, the issue in the case is whether the plaintiff who has successfully passed the New Hampshire Bar examination can be excluded from practicing in New Hampshire because she is a non-resident.
Rule 42 of the New Hampshire Supreme Court is entitled Admission to the Bar; Committee on Character and Fitness.
The court has culled from Rule 42 those sections which are apposite to the facts of this case.
In plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, she raised the issue that under Rule 42 she would be required to retake and pass for the second time the New Hampshire Bar Examination if not admitted by April 18, 1982.
The court has for its edification various affidavits filed by the parties.
Ralph H. Wood, Clerk of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, filed an affidavit stating that in order for a successful applicant to be admitted to the New Hampshire Bar she or he must establish residency in New Hampshire. The applicant by written oath must state his or her New Hampshire address. When plaintiff signed the Petition and Questionnaire for Admission to the New Hampshire Bar she stated under oath that she intended to become a resident of Littleton, New Hampshire.
Chief Justice John W. King of the New Hampshire Supreme Court filed an affidavit stating.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Galahad v. Weinshienk
...IV, § 2. See also Stalland v. South Dakota Board of Bar Examiners, 530 F.Supp. 155, 159 (D.S.D.1982); Piper v. Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 539 F.Supp. 1064 (D.N. H.1982). While the reasoning of The Slaughter-House Cases has been the subject of criticism,6 it as yet remains the The restr......
-
Jadd, Matter of
...question have concluded that the practice of law is a fundamental right for privileges and immunities purposes. Piper v. Supreme Court of N.H., 539 F.Supp. 1064 (D.N.H.1982), aff'd by an equally divided court, 723 F.2d 110 (1st Cir.1983). 5 Stalland v. South D. Bd. of Bar Examiners, 530 F.S......
-
Piper v. Supreme Court of New Hampshire
...court, on a motion for summary judgment, found that Rule 42 violated the privileges and immunities clause. Piper v. Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 539 F.Supp. 1064 (D.N.H.1982). Observing that bar regulations were subject to due process and equal protection review, the district court first......
-
Piper v. Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 82-1548
...42 of the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, the district court found that the rule violated the privileges and immunities clause. 539 F.Supp. 1064 (D.N.H.1982). A divided panel of this court reversed. Upon granting the petition for rehearing en banc, this court vacated the panel's judgment an......