HAMMERSTEIN
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court continued the case to allow the petitioner to seek clarification from California courts regarding the basis of their judgments.
A paternity action was filed against the petitioner, a New York resident, in California. The petitioner challenged the California court's personal jur…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Question cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
In this case the respondent Reggie Hammerstein, by her mother and guardian, commenced a paternity action against the petitioner in the Superior Court of California. Petitioner entered a special appearance in that court, alleging that it had no personal jurisdiction over him, as he was a New York resident. He moved to quash the service upon him in New York on the grounds that any judgment obtained against him in this proceeding would deprive him of due process. The motion to quash was denied. The superior court entered judgment for the respondent.
Prior to the entry of the judgment, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the District Court of Appeal. This petition was denied without opinion. The California Supreme Court denied his application for a hearing. After judgment, petitioner filed in the California Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the superior court proceedings. The California Supreme Court denied this petition without opinion. We granted certiorari, 340 U. S. 919 (1951).
Throughout these proceedings, petitioner preserved his federal questions, but since neither of the decisions below was accompanied by an opinion, it is not clear whether the California courts found it necessary to decide any federal question. If their judgments rest upon an adequate state ground, we, of course, will not review those judgments. If the denials of petitioner's applications for review were based upon a determination of the merits of his federal claim, the case will be ripe for our adjudication. In this circumstance, we think it advisable that we adhere to the procedure followed in Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U. S. 117 (1945).
We will continue the cause for such period as will enable counsel for the petitioner, with all convenient speed, to apply to the appropriate California courts for certificate or other expression, to show whether the judgments herein rest on adequate and independent state grounds or whether decision of the federal question was necessary to the judgments rendered. Cf. Loftus v. Illinois, 334 U. S. 804 (1948); Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U. S. 95 (1938).
Cause continued.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hammerstein v. Superior Court of Cal., 341 U.S. 491 (U.S. 1951)…to apply for a certificate or other expression from the appropriate California courts to show whether the judgments rested on adequate and independent state grounds or whether decision of the federal question was necessary to the judgments rendered. 340 U. S. 622 (1951). Such expressions have been obtained. [*492] The Supreme Court has informed us that its refusal to grant a writ of certiorari from the default judgment entered by the Superior Court was based upon petitioner’s failure to utilize the proper…
Authorities Cited
- Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1945)
- Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, 303 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1938)
- Loftus v. Illinois, 334 U.S. 804 (U.S. 1948)
- Koenig v. Cranor, 340 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1951)
- Hammerstein v. Superior Court of Cal., 340 U.S. 919 (U.S. 1951)