Frederick Voris Follmer

The case involves Gordon Jay Thompson, a former Army private serving a life sentence (later reduced) from a 1959 court-martial conviction for premeditated murder, larceny, and reckless driving committed on or near a military base. Thompson filed multiple habeas corpus petitions in federal court challenging the court-martial's jurisdiction and alleging due process violations including coerced statements, delayed notice of charges, and prejudicial publicity; prior petitions were denied and affirmed on appeal. In this successive petition, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) and Sanders v. United States to dismiss all claims, finding that the issues had already been adjudicated on the merits in earlier proceedings and that revisiting them would not serve the ends of justice, while also noting that even under O'Callahan v. Parker the offenses were sufficiently service-related to support jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In Agresti v. Parker, an inmate petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus after the U.S. Board of Parole revoked his mandatory release based on his association with a known felon. The petitioner argued that the Board's decision to delay his revocation hearing for over a year—while awaiting the outcome of unrelated Maryland criminal charges—violated due process by denying him a timely opportunity to contest the non-criminal violation allegation. The court denied the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from the delay, as he had not attempted to obtain written statements from potential witnesses and the revocation was supported by his own trial testimony confirming the association. The court noted that the Board could have held an earlier hearing but chose to rely on the anticipated criminal conviction, which was later reversed on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a tort suit brought by a Michigan guardian on behalf of a Pennsylvania minor injured by a school bus operated by defendant school districts, with the minor's Pennsylvania father joining to seek medical expenses. Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including the school districts' immunity from tort liability, the Eleventh Amendment bar to suits against the districts, lack of diversity jurisdiction over the father's claim, and insufficient damages sought by the father. The court determined that under Pennsylvania law, operating school buses for student transportation is a governmental function, entitling the districts to immunity from tort suits as confirmed in cases like Kesman v. Fallowfield Township School District. It also held that pendent jurisdiction did not extend to the father's non-diverse claim and declined to exercise discretion to hear it. The court therefore dismissed the claims against the school districts and the father's claim, while allowing the minor's claim against the bus driver to proceed.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

The case concerned a claim by Thomas Electronics against common carrier H.W. Taynton Company for damage to one of three glass cathode ray tubes shipped interstate from New Jersey to New York in 1965, with the damaged tube having a pre-shipment value of $3,449.80. The court entered judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount of the loss. The core reasoning was that under Section 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act, a carrier is liable for the full actual value of goods accepted for shipment unless the shipper makes a written declaration of value or agrees in writing to a released value tied to lower rates authorized by the ICC; here, no such declaration or agreement occurred, the carrier had not obtained the necessary ICC authorization for value-based rates, and it accepted the shipment without inquiry into value despite provisions in the bill of lading and tariff rules regarding extraordinary-value articles.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved a federal prisoner at Lewisburg Penitentiary who filed a mandamus action under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 complaining about prison officials' handling of his personal property upon readmission, an argument with the chaplain, seizure of a newspaper clipping as contraband, denial of a subscription to 'Muhammad Speaks,' limits on Muslim literature due to fire hazards, disciplinary segregation for possessing contraband, and lack of meals conforming to his dietary laws. The court dismissed the complaint in full, finding that it failed to state any claims for relief. The core reasoning was that prison authorities have broad authority under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1791 and regulations like 28 C.F.R. § 6.1 to enforce security, examine property, prohibit unauthorized items, and impose reasonable limits on religious practices and materials to protect institutional safety and discipline.

criminal lawcivil rightsreligious liberty

In this habeas corpus case, a Pennsylvania prisoner convicted of first-degree murder in 1958 and sentenced to life imprisonment petitioned the federal district court for relief, claiming unlawful custody on grounds including denial of counsel during interrogation, introduction of his prior criminal record, misquotation of evidence by the trial court, failure by the prosecution to substantiate statements to the jury, and coercion into making a statement. The court denied the petition after reviewing the trial and state habeas records, finding that claims based on Escobedo and Miranda did not apply retroactively to a 1958 trial, that the confession was admitted without objection and with counsel's agreement, that prior convictions were properly used for impeachment, and that other alleged errors were either waived, unsupported by the record, or involved only an abortive attempt to introduce evidence. The petitioner had exhausted state remedies, but the court concluded none of the grounds warranted relief under the circumstances shown in the record.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a negligence claim by Watsontown Brick Company and its insurers against Hercules Powder Company for property damage and lost profits from an allegedly defective dynamite blast in a quarry, based on Hercules furnishing an incompetent and inexperienced blaster. After a mistrial, a second jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs totaling over $144,000. The court denied the defendant's post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), holding that the evidence was legally sufficient for the jury to find the blaster unqualified, that Hercules knew or should have known of the deficiencies, and that the plaintiffs' proof on damages and other issues supported the verdict. The court also rejected defenses including contributory negligence, contractual indemnity, and evidentiary challenges, finding no basis to disturb the jury's findings.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Cameron R. Pritt's civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 alleging illegal arrest without a warrant, denial of counsel, improper interrogation, interference with legal mail, and inducement to withdraw a motion for new trial by various state officials and others during his 1965 criminal proceedings. The court reconsidered its prior dismissal and evaluated the claims against fifteen defendants after the plaintiff provided additional details in a motion. It dismissed the complaint against eight defendants including the plaintiff's counsel, a witness, prosecutors, judges, and court staff, reasoning that they either did not act under color of state law or were protected by judicial or prosecutorial immunity for acts within their official duties. The court allowed the action to proceed in forma pauperis against the remaining five defendants (troopers Linker and Scutta, Warden Johnson, Ernst, and Reverend) as the pleadings suggested possible valid claims under the statutes. Jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C. § 1343, with the decision emphasizing that no determination on the ultimate merits was made.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In Fallis v. United States, a federal prisoner at Lewisburg Penitentiary filed a document styled as a habeas corpus petition (treated by the court as a request to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 for mandamus relief), claiming that his placement in solitary confinement and administrative segregation for refusing to work in prison industry violated the Fifth, Eighth, and Thirteenth Amendments because he objected to machine noise and sought reassignment of his choice. The court denied leave to proceed and dismissed the action, holding that habeas corpus does not extend to directing prison officials on inmate treatment and that no duty was owed to the plaintiff under the mandamus statute. The opinion reasoned that lawful incarceration necessarily limits privileges and rights, that federal law requires providing employment for physically fit inmates, and that requiring prisoners to work under institution rules does not constitute involuntary servitude, cruel and unusual punishment, or other constitutional violations, as this was an ordinary prison discipline matter rather than an extreme case warranting judicial intervention.

criminal lawcivil rights

Inmate Robert C. Taylor sought to file a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Pennsylvania Board of Parole, requesting $500,000 in punitive damages for alleged constitutional violations arising from his arrest as a parole violator. The court first addressed whether the Board qualifies as a 'person' under the statute. Relying on precedents such as Monroe v. Pape and Egan v. City of Aurora, which exclude municipalities and similar governmental entities from the definition of 'person,' along with additional cases barring suits against states, counties, and other bodies, the court concluded that the Board of Parole is not a person subject to suit under § 1983. The court therefore denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the complaint.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

In this case, plaintiffs sought damages for injuries from an automobile accident involving a U.S. government employee acting within the scope of employment, leading to substitution of the United States as defendant under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The United States moved to join as third-party defendants the employee's insurer (GEIC) and the vehicle owner's insurer (PNMCIC), asserting coverage as an additional insured. The court granted the motion, holding that the policies' language and relevant precedents established the United States as an additional insured, that the government had properly tendered defense, and that joinder was permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 despite the mix of tort and contract claims. The court further reasoned that policy provisions on defense control and the insurers' expectations regarding government drivers did not bar coverage or joinder.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

In Berry v. United States Parole Board, an inmate at a federal penitentiary challenged the denial of his parole application by the United States Board of Parole, alleging that the decision was arbitrary, based on a biased progress report, and should have considered his need for medical treatment due to ill health. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court reasoned that under 18 U.S.C. § 4203, the Parole Board holds discretionary authority to grant or deny parole, which is a matter of legislative grace rather than a right, and that the inmate's conclusory allegations did not present an extraordinary case warranting judicial interference with the Board's determinations based on its judgment and observations.

criminal lawprocedure

In Heft v. Parker, a federal prisoner at Lewisburg Penitentiary petitioned the district court to enjoin the warden from imposing an allegedly inadequate diet while the prisoner was held in a punishment cell, claiming the diet caused a twenty-pound weight loss and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The court denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the petition. The decision rested on the prisoner's failure to exhaust available administrative remedies through the Bureau of Prisons' Prisoner’s Mail Box procedure, the broad discretion granted to prison officials over internal treatment and discipline, the conclusion that the bare allegations did not establish cruel and unusual punishment, and the mootness of the claim given that the prisoner was then receiving adequate food.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved a federal inmate, Reid Tucker Hill, who filed a petition for a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 seeking to compel the U.S. Board of Parole and prison officials to restore 307 days of good time credit forfeited after his parole violation and to adjust his release date accordingly. The court construed the filing as seeking relief under the mandamus jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, but dismissed the petition and denied in forma pauperis status. It held that § 1361 does not confer jurisdiction to direct or alter discretionary decisions already made by officials. The court further reasoned that good time allowances are forfeited upon parole violation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4205 and that time spent on parole does not count toward the original sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Long v. Katzenbach, inmates at the U.S. Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, who identified as Black Muslims sued prison officials under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, alleging restrictions on their religious practices including limits on attending services based on a pre-commitment religion list, denial of a Muslim chaplain or chapel access, prohibition on changing religious affiliation, and related punishments or denial of materials. The court treated the defendants' motion as one for summary judgment and granted dismissal as to all plaintiffs. It found that the prison's rules against proselytizing and lists for smaller religious groups were reasonable measures to maintain security, discipline, and rehabilitation, with no evidence of arbitrary or capricious action by officials. For plaintiff Colter, who sought to change from Baptist to Muslim, the issue became moot after a new policy allowed affiliation changes and added him to the Muslim attendance list.

criminal lawreligious libertycivil rights

The case involved a state prisoner's federal habeas corpus petition claiming that a confession used against him at his 1964 armed robbery trial was involuntary, obtained without counsel, and that its voluntariness had not been properly determined under Jackson v. Denno. The court reviewed the trial transcript and found no clear ruling on voluntariness, with related testimony intermixed throughout the proceedings alongside evidence of guilt. It concluded that this process risked distorting the voluntariness determination and was inconsistent with due process requirements from Jackson v. Denno. The court therefore directed that the petitioner receive a full evidentiary hearing in state court to determine the confession's voluntariness, with a new trial required only if it was found involuntary.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a suit by the executors of Howard J. Lamade's estate against the District Director of Internal Revenue seeking a refund of federal estate taxes paid on the proceeds of a $40,000 life insurance policy. The court held that the policy proceeds were not includible in the decedent's gross estate and ordered a refund of the taxes paid plus interest. The core reasoning was that the decedent had made an absolute assignment of the original policy and its successors to family members twenty-one years before his death, retaining no incidents of ownership at the time of death, and that his signature on a later conversion application did not restore any such rights while premium payments were treated as gifts.

taxesproperty

In Desmond v. Blackwell, a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg brought a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that officials violated his rights by denying ministry by a person of his faith, access to teachings and publications from Elijah Muhammad, and correspondence with Muhammad. The court assumed without deciding that the Nation of Islam qualified as a religion but denied the petition. The court reasoned that prisoners retain the absolute right to hold their beliefs but that officials possess discretion to restrict associated conduct, meetings, and materials when necessary to preserve discipline, safety, and orderly administration, and found the restrictions here were reasonable and not arbitrary given the inflammatory nature of the materials and meetings.

religious libertycivil rightscriminal law

The case involved plaintiffs' motion to transfer a personal injury lawsuit arising from an August 1960 car accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Franklin County from the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the Western District. The court denied the motion. The accident site and key witnesses, including a state trooper and treating physician, were located closer to Harrisburg in the Middle District than to Pittsburgh, the suit had been pending for nineteen months with a prior continuance requested by plaintiffs, and defendants' counsel had already prepared for trial there. Plaintiffs, who resided in the Western District, failed to meet their burden of showing that transfer would expedite the case or serve the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), as it would instead cause additional delay and inconvenience to defendants.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a libel and slander lawsuit brought by attorney William E. Bufalino against Luzerne County District Attorney Stephen A. Teller. Bufalino alleged that Teller made defamatory statements about his and his family's alleged Mafia and racketeering connections in a character reference letter sent to the National Conference of Bar Examiners as part of Bufalino's application for admission to the Michigan bar. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that Teller was protected by absolute privilege when responding to the request for information about the bar applicant's character. The reasoning emphasized the critical need for candid, unhindered input from attorneys and officials to bar examining authorities to ensure only qualified candidates are admitted, as supported by professional ethics canons and precedents recognizing privilege in such investigative contexts.

torts & liabilityprocedure