Harvey Smith v. Walter Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019 (3rd Cir. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Harvey Smith v. Walter Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019 (3rd Cir. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Harmon v. Lawson (ded, 2022-06-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harmon v. Lawson
D. Del. · 2022 · confidence medium
Immunity from suit applies when: [t]he official’s action in question involves the exercise of discretionary judgment, Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435 [-]36 (1993), performance of a function under the direction of a judge, Waits v. McGowan, 516 F.2d 203, 205-06 (3d Cir. 1975), performance of a ministerial duty pursuant to a statute, see Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019, 1020 (3d Cir. 1972), or performance of a function otherwise closely allied with the judicial process, Waits v. McGowan, 516 F.2d at 206 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) LUFT v. THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY OCCUPIED BY MICHELLE M. SMITH
D.N.J. · 2020 · confidence medium
Credit Union, 197 F. App’x 102, 106 (3d Cir. 2006); Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019, 1020 (3d Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Taylor v. Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners
D. Kan. · 2019 · confidence medium
“Immunity which derives from judicial immunity may extend to persons other than a judge where performance of judicial acts or activity as an official aid of the judge is involved.” Henriksen v. Bentley, 644 F.2d 852, 855 (10th Cir. 1981). “[A]bsolute judicial immunity has been extended to non-judicial officers where ‘their duties had an integral relationship with the judicial process.’” Whitesel v. Sengenberger, 222 F.3d 861, 867 (10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Eades v. Sterlinske, 810 F.2d 723, 726 (7th Cir. 1987)); see also Lundahl v. Zimmer, 296 F.3d 936, 939 (10th Cir. 2002) (holding…
cited Cited as authority (rule) James v. Heritage Valley Federal Credit Union
3rd Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427 , 96 S.Ct. 984 , 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (prosecutor); Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019, 1020 (3d Cir.1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stanton v. Chase
D.C. · 1985 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Slotnick v. Garfinkle, 632 F.2d 163, 166 (1st Cir.1980) (judicial immunity extended to court clerk in filling out commitment papers because carrying out official directives of judge); Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019, 1020 (3d Cir.1972) (court clerk has immunity for performance of ministerial acts mandated by statute); Haldane v. Chagnon, 345 F.2d 601, 604 (9th Cir.1965) (bailiff, acting at direction of judge, is part of “the body of the court” and “is entitled to the protection of the judicial immunity which surrounded the whole court”). 2 The facts of this case fall squar…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reginald Williams v. Marie Wood
5th Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Slotnik v. Staviskey, 560 F.2d 31, 32 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1077 , 98 S.Ct. 1268 , 55 L.Ed.2d 783 (1978) (in entering judgment); Lockhart v. Hoenstine, 411 F.2d 455, 460 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 941 , 90 S.Ct. 378 , 24 L.Ed.2d 244 (1969) (under court order); Brown v. Dunne, 409 F.2d 341, 343 (7th Cir. 1969) (in administering conservatorship); see Barnes v. Dorsey, 480 F.2d 1057, 1060 (8th Cir. 1973) (in denying transcript under procedural rules); Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019, 1020 (3d Cir. 1972) (in revoking bail bond under statutory requirement); Dieu v. Norton…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raitport v. Provident National Bank
E.D. Pa. · 1978 · confidence medium
See Robinson v. McCorkle, 462 F.2d 111, 113 (3d Cir.) (alternative holding), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1042 , 93 S.Ct. 529 , 34 L.Ed.2d 492 (1972); Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019, 1020 (3d Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (alternative holding); Marcedes v. Barrett, 453 F.2d 391, 392 (3d Cir. 1971) (per curiam) (alternative holding); Henig v. Odorioso, 385 F.2d 491, 494 (3d Cir. 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Frank S. Waits v. Hon. Raymond McGowan A. J. S. C., Monmouth County
3rd Cir. · 1975 · confidence medium
The following cases indicate the range of reasoning used by the courts to protect the clerk of the court from liability in civil rights suits: Denman v. Leedy, 479 F.2d 1097, 1098 (6th Cir. 1973) (failure to fix bond was within scope of official, quasi-judicial duties); Blouin v. Dembitz, 367 F.Supp. 415, 422 (S.D.N.Y.1973), aff’d solely on other grounds, 489 F.2d 488 (2d Cir. 1973) (issuance of arrest warrants by judge for failure to respond to summons is a judicial act for which the judge is immune and his protection from suit may not be circumvented by pretense of bringing suit also again…
cited Cited "see" Guarino v. Larsen
E.D. Pa. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019 (3rd Cir.1972).
discussed Cited "see" Bailey v. Kenney
D. Kan. · 1992 · signal: accord · confidence high
Co., 299 F.Supp. 429, 435 (D.Minn.1969) (in § 1983 case, “[s]o long as the bounds of reasonable means needed to effect the apprehension are not transgressed, and the purpose of the recapture is proper in light of the surety’s undertaking, sureties will not be liable for returning their principals to proper custody.”); accord Smith v. Rosenbaum, 333 F.Supp. 35, 39 (E.D.Pa.1971), aff'd, 460 F.2d 1019 (3d Cir.1972); Thomas v. Miller, 282 F.Supp. 571, 573 (E.D.Tenn.1968). 8 For Fourth Amendment purposes, “[w]hat is reasonable, of course, ‘depends on all the circumstances surrounding the…
cited Cited "see" Shipley v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Delaware
D. Del. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019 (3d Cir.1972); accord Scott v. Dixon, 720 F.2d 1542 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 122 , 83 L.Ed.2d 64 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harvey SMITH, Appellant,
v.
Walter ROSENBAUM Et Al., Appellees
71-1371.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jun 8, 1972.
460 F.2d 1019
Robert L. Pratter, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant., John Mattioni, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee Sidney Grobman., Morris Paul Baran, Sporkin & Baran, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellees Walter Rosenbaum and Vernon Marks.
Rosenn, Rosen.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Harvey Smith, filed a complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging, inter alia, that appellees had acted under color of state law to deprive him of rights secured under the United States Constitution and laws of the United States by issuing a bail piece [1] against him, revoking his bail, and retaining his fully paid bond premiums, all without notice to Smith. He also alleged that the bail bond agreements with the bondsmen, Rosenbaum and Marks, were illegal, entitling him to the return of his bail bond premiums. Appellee, Sidney Grobman, was at the time of this suit, a Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Section and employed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as Clerk of the Quarter Sessions Court of the County of Philadelphia. Jurisdiction was claimed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1443, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985.

The case was tried before the district court judge without a jury and a judgment was entered in favor of appellees, Rosenbaum, Marks and Grobman. On January 14, 1971, Smith’s post-trial motion for “Additional Findings of Fact” was denied. The judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are reported in Smith v. Rosenbaum, 333 F.Supp. 35 (E.D.Pa.1971).

The evidence established that Smith was arrested four times in the period from August 9, 1966 to December 6, 1966. Rosenbaum and Marks posted bail bonds on his behalf after receiving premiums on three occasions. Smith was arrested on December 6, 1966 for the fourth time. Smith could not make bail and therefore was incarcerated. On December 7, 1966, [2] Rosenbaum and Marks lodged a bail piece with Grobman upon payment of the statutory fee [3] because they believed their risk had substantially increased and Smith had failed to report his change of address.

As a court clerk, Grobman performed a ministerial act mandated by statute; he has judicial immunity and cannot be sued under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., Marcedes v. Barrett, 3 Cir., 453 F.2d 391 (1971), Robinson v. McCorkle, et al., 3 Cir., 462 F.2d 111 (Argued March 14, 1972), and cases cited therein.

We have carefully examined the record before us and agree with the trial judge that Smith was not deprived of any federally protected rights; nor has there been a breach of the bail bond[*1021] agreements requiring the return of the premiums. [4]

The July 1, 1971 judgment of the District Court in favor of appellees Rosenbaum, Marks and Grobman and against appellant Harvey Smith will be affirmed.

1

. A bail piece is a document which a bondsman may obtain from the Court Clerk and is used to revoke bail previously posted by the bondsman. The Act of 1860, March 31, P.L. 427, § 8, 19 P.S. § 53 provides that:

“All sureties, mainpernors and bail in criminal cases, whether bound in recognizance for a particular matter or for all charges whatsoever, shall be entitled to have a bail piece, duly certified by the proper officer or person before whom or in whose office the recognizance of such surety, mainpernors or bail shall be or remain, and upon such bail piece, by themselves, or their agents, to arrest and detain, and surrender their principals, with the like effect as in cases of bail in civil actions; and such bail piece shall be a sufficient warrant or authority for the proper sheriff or jailer to receive the said principal, and have him forthcoming to answer the matter or matters alleged against him: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent the person thus arrested and detained from giving new bail or sureties for his appearance, who shall have the same right of surrender herein-before provided.”
2

. On December 7, 1966 when Rosenbaum and Marks filed bail pieces, Smith was in prison on the December 6th, 1966 charge because of his inability to make bail.

3

. The Act of 1959, Oct. 14, P.L. 1314, § 1, as amended 1961, Sept. 2, P.L. 1155, 17 P.S. § 442.1, provides that a fee of three dollars ($3.00) is to be paid for the issuance of a bail piece.

4

. Smith argues on appeal that “the bail bond form agreements which appellant [Smith] was required to sign are illegal, thereby entitling appellant to the return of the bail bond premiums.” Appellant’s brief p. 13. This is inconsistent with the allegation in the amended complaint that Rosenbaum and Marks “breached their agreements” with him. App. 11a.