Rodes v. Mun. Auth. of Borough of Milford., 409 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1969). · Go Syfert
Search
Rodes v. Mun. Auth. of Borough of Milford., 409 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1969). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
43 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Brian Lyszkowski v. Diane Gibbons (ca3, 2017-04-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Brian Lyszkowski v. Diane Gibbons
3rd Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Auth. of Borough of Milford, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3d Cir. 1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Salerno v. O'ROURKE
D.N.J. · 1983 · confidence medium
His Complaint alleges specific and cognizable violations of his right to freedom of speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and his right to substantive and procedural due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 7 Rodes v. Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3d Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 861 , 90 S.Ct. 133 , 24 L.Ed.2d 114 (1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Environmental Aid, Inc. v. Goddard (2×)
W.D. Pa. · 1977 · confidence medium
Enterprises, Inc. v. Cataldo, 457 F.2d 1012 (1st Cir. 1972); Rodes v. Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3rd Cir. 1969); Cf. Roy v. Jones, 484 F.2d 96 (3rd Cir. 1973); Resources for Human Development, Inc. v. Furber, 387 F.Supp. 11 (E.D.Pa.1975).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Meyer v. Curran
E.D. Pa. · 1975 · confidence medium
As this Circuit stated in Rodes v. Municipal Authority, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 861 , 90 S.Ct. 133 , 24 L.Ed.2d 114 (1969): “A plaintiff is required to set forth alleged misconduct and resultant harms in a way which will permit an informed ruling whether the wrong complained of is of federal cognizance.” Meyer has alleged only that the three named defendants acted in concert.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marshall v. Electric Hose & Rubber Co.
D. Del. · 1974 · confidence medium
Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1, 6 (C.A. 3, 1970); Rodes v. Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (C.A. 3, 1969), cert. den., 396 U.S. 861 , 90 S.Ct. 133 , 24 L.Ed.2d 114 , reh. den., 396 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 377 , 24 L.Ed.2d 256 (1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Downs v. Department of Public Welfare
E.D. Pa. · 1973 · confidence medium
Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F. 2d 1270, 1275-1276 (3rd Cir. 1970), cert. den. 400 U.S. 846 , 91 S.Ct. 93 , 27 L.Ed. 2d 84 (1970); Rodes v. Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3 Cir. 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 861 , 90 S.Ct. 133 , 24 L.Ed.2d 114 (1969); Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213, 215 (3 Cir. 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doris J. Wilson v. Lincoln Redevelopment Corporation (2×)
8th Cir. · 1973 · confidence medium
Stanturf v. Sipes, 335 F.2d 224, 229 (8th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 977 , 85 S.Ct. 676 , 13 L.Ed.2d 567 (1965); Rodes v. Municipal Authority of Milford, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 861 , 90 S.Ct. 133 , 24 L.Ed.2d 114 (1969). 21 It seems to me that the complaint alleges with sufficient factual definiteness (1) that the appellee was a quasi-governmental corporation possessed of certain state governmental powers by reason of the Missouri urban redevelopment statute under which it was chartered; (2) that appellee threatened to evict appellant from her leased apartme…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gozdanovic v. Civil Serv. Com'n for City of Pittsburgh, Pa.
W.D. Pa. · 1973 · confidence medium
Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 7, 10 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 (1943) ; Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 428 F.2d 1, 3 (3d Cir. 1970) ; Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F.2d 1270, 1275 (3d Cir. 1970) ; Rodes v. Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3d Cir. 1969) ; Pusateri v. Johnston, 398 F.2d 327 (3d Cir. 1968) ; Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967) ; United States ex rel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Poole v. Wolke
E.D. Wis. · 1973 · confidence medium
These are not “mere conclusory allegations that unspecified constitutional rights have been infringed.” Rodes v. Municipal Authority, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3rd Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 861 , 90 S.Ct. 133 , 24 L.Ed.2d 114 (1969).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hutter v. Schraml
E.D. Wis. · 1970 · confidence medium
Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3d Cir. 1967); Birnbaum v. Trussell, 347 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1965).” Another civil rights case in which an analogous ruling was made is Rodes v. Municipal Authority, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3rd Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 861 , 90 S.Ct. 133 , 24 L.Ed.2d 114 (1969), rehearing denied, 396 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 377 , 24 L.Ed.2d 256 (1969), where the court held: “A plaintiff is required to set forth alleged misconduct and resultant harms in a way which will permit an informed ruling whether the wrong complained of is of federal cognizance.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Asher v. Harrington
E.D. Wis. · 1970 · confidence medium
Negrich v. Hohn, 379 F.2d 213 (3rd Cir. 1967); Birnbaum v. Trussell, 347 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1965).” A similar expression is found in Bufalino v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 404 F.2d 1023 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. denied 394 U.S. 987 , 89 S.Ct. 1468 , 22 L.Ed.2d 763 (1969), where the court said (at p. 1029): “Jurisdiction is not conferred on a federal court in a non-diversity case by mere conclusory allegations that one’s constitutional or civil rights have been violated.” Another civil rights case in which an analogous ruling was made is Rodes v. Municipal Authority, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Weise v. Reisner
E.D. Wis. · 1970 · confidence medium
Thus, in Valley v. Maule, 297 F.Supp. 958 (D.Conn.1968), the court dismissed the complaint and stated at p. 960: “# * * plaintiff must specify with ‘at least some degree of particularity’ the overt acts which defendants allegedly engaged in * * *.” In another civil rights case, Rodes v. Municipal Authority, 409 F.2d 16, 17 (3rd Cir. 1969), cert. denied 396 U.S. 861 , 90 S.Ct. 133 , 24 L.Ed.2d 114 (1969), rehearing denied 396 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 377 , 24 L.Ed.2d 256 (1969), the court said: “A plaintiff is required to set forth alleged misconduct and resultant harms in a way which will…
discussed Cited "see" Michael Boyd v. Hugh Wright Stanton, Jr., Judge Arthur Bennett, John C. Hough, and Felton J. Earl
6th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cohen v. Illinois Institute of Technology, 581 F.2d 658, 653 (7th Cir. 1978), Rodes v. Municipal Authority of Borough of Milford, 409 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1969). 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion for counsel is denied and the judgment of the district court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(d)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
cited Cited "see" Brooks v. Peters
E.D. Wis. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rodes v. Municipal Authority, 409 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 861 , 90 S.Ct. 133 , 24 L.Ed.2d 114 (1969), rehearing denied, 396 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 377 , 24 L.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Torres Irizarry v. Toro Goyco
D.P.R. · 1976 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, Rodes v. Municipal Authority, 409 F.2d 16 , (3 Cir. 1969), cert. den. 396 U.S. 861 , 90 S.Ct. 133 , 24 L.Ed.2d 114 , reh. den. 396 U.S. 950 , 90 S.Ct. 377 , 24 L.Ed.2d 256 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alice T. Rodes, Guardian Ad Litem for Melania Deszirmay, Individually and as Administratrix for the Estate of William Z. Deszirmay
v.
Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford. Alice T. Rodes, Guardian Ad Litem
17227_1.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 11, 1969.
409 F.2d 16
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

409 F.2d 16

Alice T. RODES, Guardian ad Litem for Melania DeSzirmay,
individually and as administratrix for the Estate
of William Z. DeSzirmay
v.
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY OF the BOROUGH OF MILFORD.
Alice T. Rodes, Guardian ad Litem, Appellant.

No. 17227.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Dec. 6, 1968.
Decided Jan. 13, 1969, Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1969.

Alice T. Rodes, pro se.

Paul A. Barrett, Nogi, O'Malley & Harris, Scranton, Pa. (Eugene Nogi, Scranton, Pa., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HASTIE, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

1

This action was brought by a resident of Milford Township, Pike County, Pennsylvania, against the Municipal Authority of the Borough of Milford, an agency established for the purpose of furnishing water to the residents of Milford Borough, for allegedly wrongfully diverting the plaintiff's water supply in such a manner as to deprive her of her civil rights in violation of section 1983 of title 42, United States Code. The district court entered an order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. This is an appeal from that order.

2

The district court had before it a fifty-seven paragraph complaint and several amendments. The complaint, drafted without the assistance of a lawyer, contains a narrative of events which the plaintiff believes have involved violations of her civil rights. Her troubles seem to have begun with a 1955 deed, said to have been 'involuntarily' given by the plaintiff and her husband to a land developer, and a related agreement upon which the developer successfully sued the present plaintiff for specific performance. Following the dismissal of a petition to vacate that judgment, the plaintiff appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Ultimately, she discontinued the appeal 'on advice of attorney handling same.' The complaint continues with allegations of inadequate assistance of formerly retained counsel and questionable ethics and practices of formerly retained counsel and executives of the defendant.

3

In 1966, the controversy came to focus on the supplying of water. The complaint alleges various unsuccessful attempts of the plaintiff to secure adequate water service. Without reciting with specificity the acts of the Authority which have worked as an infringement upon her civil rights, the plaintiff has recited a history of grievances and disputes with the Authority over billed arrearages and inadequate service.

4

The plaintiff also complains that a 'special water agreement' was struck between the land developer who had defeated her in the suit in equity and the Authority, the Borough of Milford, 'and possibly the County of Pike', in violation of a 'Borough Council Ordinance', and 'Public trust'. The object of this 'agreement' is said to be the development of a subdivision contiguous to the plaintiff's property. Certain public officials are alleged to have personal interests in the subdivision. It does not appear what there is in this agreement which arguably deprives the plaintiff of any federal civil rights.

5

A plaintiff is required to set forth alleged misconduct and resultant harms in a way which will permit an informed ruling whether the wrong complained of is of federal cognizance. Mere conclusionary allegations that unspecified constitutional rights have been infringed will not suffice. The reguirement of specificity is particularly important in such a case as this in order that the Civil Rights Act not be misused as a device for federal review of a state court judgment, or for litigating state law claims cognizable only in the state courts.

6

We have observed that the preparation of the complaint in this case and the perfection of this appeal have both been accomplished without the assistance of a lawyer. The appellant's kinswoman who has served as her 'attorney in fact' has diligently expended much time and effort in this matter. However, the failure of the complaint to disclose any federal wrong indicates the wisdom of the district court's suggestion to the plaintiff that professional counsel should be retained, especially where, as here, the controversy has involved many transactions and no tenable theory of federal wrong is apparent. The judgment will be affirmed.