Legal Opinion

Finberg v. Sullivan

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided November 21, 1978No. Civ. A. 77-4166PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

VanARTSDALEN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This suit raises certain issues as to the constitutional validity of Pennsylvania’s post-judgment garnishment procedures, Pa. Stat.Ann. tit. 42, Rule 3101, et seq. Motions for summary judgment have been filed by all parties except the judgment creditor. Upon careful consideration of all the issues, I have concluded that the mootness doctrine does not bar this action, that this case is not properly certifiable as a class action, and that the post-judgment garnishment provisions in question are offensive to neither the due…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Goldberg v. KellySupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Powell v. McCormackSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Armstrong v. ManzoSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Finberg v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
  2. Finberg v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
  3. Curry v. BlockDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1982
  4. Saunders v. Reeher (In Re Saunders)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Strick Corp. v. Thai Teak Products Company, Ltd.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1980

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API