Legal Opinion
Finberg v. Sullivan
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided October 27, 1980No. 79-1129PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION SUR DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR VACATION OF JUDGMENT
ADAMS, Circuit Judge.
In an opinion filed October 27, 1980, 634 F.2d 50, this Court, sitting en banc, held that Pennsylvania’s post-judgment garnishment procedures violated the due process clause of the Federal Constitution in two respects. First, the state procedures failed to provide a prompt post-seizure hearing at which claims of exemption could be adjudicated, and second, the state scheme did not require that the judgment debtor be informed of the existence of or procedure for claiming exemptions under state and federal law.…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- United States v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- County of Los Angeles v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Hall v. BealsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- In Re Sanford Fork & Tool Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. LingleCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- In Re Chambers Development Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
- Gary Bryant v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- Philadelphia Police & Fire Ass'n for Handicapped Children, Inc. v. City of PhiladelphiaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- United States v. Dominique JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.