Legal Opinion
Parks v. " MR. FORD"
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 10, 1975No. Civ. A. 72-639 and 73-1699PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
FOGEL, District Judge.
Plaintiffs, in these consolidated actions, assert that the retention and sale elements of the “repairmen’s lien” created by the common law and statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1 violate the Fourteenth Amendment, to the extent that lienors are permitted to deprive persons of the use or ownership of their property without prior judicial determination of the validity of the underlying claim.
Before us are those aspects of plaintiffs’ motions for “partial summary judgment” (pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), 2 which…
2Cases cited54 opinions
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Bell v. HoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Powell v. McCormackSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Pierce v. Society of SistersSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Shelley v. KraemerSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Parks v. Mr. FordCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1977
- Sweeney v. BondDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1981
- B. Cohen & Sons Caterers, Inc. v. New Plan Realty Trust (In Re B. Cohen & Sons Caterers, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1989
- Parks v. Mr. FordDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1975
- Duffy v. QuattrocchiDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.