J. John Gordon v. U. S. Dep't of Just., 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
J. John Gordon v. U. S. Dep't of Just., 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the law is well established that it is proper and necessary for an injunction to issue barring a party, such as appellant, from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.”
53 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 24 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Dias v. Bogins (nhd, 1995-05-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Dias v. Bogins
D.N.H. · 1995 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the law is well established that it is proper and necessary for an injunction to issue barring a party, such as appellant, from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) R. Susan Woods
Bankr. D. Mass. · 2021 · confidence medium
Mass. Sept. 30, 2013) (citing Gordon v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 558 F.2d 618, 618 (1st Cir. 1977) (per curium)); see also Elbery v. Louison, 201 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 1999) (“[I]n extreme circumstances involving groundless encroachment upon the limited time and resources of the court and other parties, an injunction barring a party from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits may be appropriate.”) The Debtor has clearly evidenced a “propensity to file repeated [pleadings] involving the same or similar claims of a ‘frivolous or vexatious nature.’” Langadinos, 2…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fraser v. Prudential Insurance Agency, LLC.
D. Mass. · 2018 · confidence medium
“The law is well established that it is proper and necessary for an injunction to issue barring a party . . . from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.” Gordon v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 558 F.2d 618, 618 (1st Cir. 1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lu v. Menino
D. Mass. · 2015 · confidence medium
The law is also “well established that it is proper and necessary for an injunction to issue barring a party ... from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits.” Gordon v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 558 F.2d 618, 618 (1st Cir.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cowhig v. Togo West
1st Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
It is well established that courts have the power to issue injunctions "barring a party ... from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits." Gordon v. United States Dep't of Justice, 558 F.2d 618, 618 (1st Cir. 1977) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cowhig v. Togo West
1st Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
It is well established that courts have the power to issue injunctions "barring a party ... from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits." Gordon v. United States Dep't of Justice, 558 F.2d 618, 618 (1st Cir. 1977) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Santiago-Lugo v. United States
D.P.R. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gordon, 558 F.2d at 618 .
discussed Cited "see" STEFANIK v. Town of Huntington
D. Mass. · 2008 · signal: accord · confidence high
See Castro v. United States, 775 F.2d 399, 408 (1st Cir.1985) (per curiam) (“[I]n extreme circumstances involving groundless encroachment upon the limited time and resources of the court and other parties, an injunction barring a party from filing and *115 processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits may be appropriate.”); accord Gordon v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 558 F.2d 618, 618 (1st Cir.1977) (per curiam) (same); Pavilonis v. King, 626 F.2d 1075, 1078 (1st Cir.1980) (same).
discussed Cited "see" Nolette v. O'Neil
Me. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Stickler v. Key Bank of Southern Maine, 618 A.2d 204, 207 (Me.1992) (citing Gordon v. Department of Justice, 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir.1977); Clinton v. United States, 297 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir.1961); Liedtke v. Fillen-worth, 372 N.W.2d 50, 52 (Minn.App.1985)).
cited Cited "see" Moody v. Smith (In Re Moody)
S.D. Tex. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gordon v. U.S. Department of Justice, 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir.1977); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 , 1261-62 (2d Cir.1984); Urban v. United Nations, 768 F.2d 1497, 1500 (D.C.Cir.1985).
discussed Cited "see" Kersh v. BORDEN CHEMICAL, a DIV. OF BORDEN, INC.
E.D. Mich. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gordon v. Department of Justice, 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir.1977); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d 1254 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1061 , 106 S.Ct. 807 , 88 L.Ed.2d 782 (1985); Gambocz v. Yelencsics, 468 F.2d 837 (3d Cir.1972); Day v. Allstate Ins.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Telfair
D.N.J. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Gordon v. U.S. Department of Justice, 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir. 1977) (plaintiff enjoined from instituting suit against any state or federal judge, officer, or employee without permission of court); Green v. Wyrick, 428 F.Supp. 732 (W.D.Mo.1976).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Spickler v. Key Bank of Southern Maine
Me. · 1992 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Gordon v. Department of Justice, 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir.1977); Clinton v. United States, 297 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir.1961); Liedtke v. Fillenworth, 372 N.W.2d 50, 52 (Minn.App.1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State Ex Rel. Bardacke v. Welsh
N.M. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Gordon v. United States Department of Justice, 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir.1977); Roy v. Manchester Gas Co., 113 N.H. 140 , 302 A.2d 825 (1973); Muka v. Hancock, Estabrook, Ryan, Shove & Hust, 120 Misc.2d 146 , 465 N.Y.S.2d 416 (1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Lonzy Oliver. Appeal of Lonzy Oliver
3rd Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Gordon v. U.S. Department of Justice, 558 F.2d 618 (1st Cir. 1977) (plaintiff enjoined from instituting suit against any state or federal judge, officer, or employee without permission of court); Green v. Wyrick, 428 F.Supp. 732 (W.D.Mo.1976).
J. John GORDON, Appellant,
v.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Appellee
77-1248.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Jun 20, 1977.
558 F.2d 618
No counsel appearing for either party.
Coffin, Campbell.
Cited by 45 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 80%
Citer courts: D. New Hampshire (1)
PER CURIAM.

J. John Gordon appeals from the district court’s order of January 14, 1977 instructing the clerk not to accept for filing the complaint submitted by appellant on January 3, 1977. We affirm.

After filing a series of complaints made up vituperative attacks upon all the federal district court judges in Massachusetts, all the circuit court judges in the First Circuit, all the judges of the United States Supreme Court, etc., for ruling against him, a visiting judge entered an order on August 18, 1976:

“perpetually enjoining and restraining . J. John Gordon, from continuing, instituting or prosecuting, without prior leave of court, this or any other legal proceeding in any court against any state or federal judge, officer or employee for actions taken in the course of their official duties as such judge, officer or employee.”

In reliance upon this order, the district court refused to allow appellant’s latest complaint, requesting, inter alia, the arrest of both the visiting and local district court judges for issuing orders against him and the placing of the district court and this court into a receivership.

His argument on appeal is that no American can be denied access to the courts. The law is well established that it is proper and necessary for an injunction to issue barring a party, such as appellant, from filing and processing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. Rudnicki v. McCormack, 210 F.Supp. 905, 908-912 (D.Mass. and R.I., 1962), appeal dismissed sub nom. Rudnicki v. Cox, 372 U.S. 226, 83 S.Ct. 679, 9 L.Ed.2d 714 (1963). Accord, Clinton v. United States, 297 F.2d 899, 901-902 (9th Cir. 1961); Meredith v. John Deere Plow Company of Moline, Ill., 261 F.2d 121, 124 (8th Cir. 1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 909, 79 S.Ct. 586, 3 L.Ed.2d 574 (1959). See also Adams v. American Bar Association, 400 F.Supp. 219, 227-228 (E.D.Pa.1975); Boruski v. Stewart, 381 F.Supp. 529, 535 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff’d sub nom. Boruski v. United States Government, 493 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1974), appeal dismissed, 419 U.S. 808, 95 S.Ct. 20, 42 L.Ed.2d 34 (1974).

[*619] The order of the district court is hereby affirmed.