Legal Opinion

Hagerty v. Keller, Executor of the Succession of Clement, Et Al.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided November 4, 1985No. 85-84PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Chief Justice Burger.

I agree that we should deny the petition for certiorari, but I would award respondents costs and fees under Rule 49.2. The time has come — indeed it is long past — when the Court should enforce Rule 49.2 or strike it. This petition, like much which preceded it, is utterly frivolous. On this record I can only conclude that petitioner and his counsel have filed actions designed to delay the orderly settlement of the estate of respondent Keller’s decedent. This misuse of judicial processes should subject the attorney who filed the petition…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. John M. Hagerty v. Succession of Laura McCloskey ClementCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
  2. Talamini, Administratrix of the Estate of Talamini v. Allstate Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Succession of ClementLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1981

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Daniel Johnson v. Joe Kegans and John HolmesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
  2. Robertson v. Burger King, Inc.District Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1994
  3. Claughton v. DonnerDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1991
  4. Daniel Johnson v. Joe Kegans and John HolmesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API