BLACK UNITY LEAGUE OF KENTUCKY ET AL.
v.
MILLER 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 Black Unity League of Kentucky sought federal court intervention to prevent the Kentucky Un-American Activities Committee from conducting investigations it claimed would violate First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, but had not alleged that any actual subpoenas, witness calls, or prosecutions had occurred. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the trial court properly rejected the complaint because the allegations of injury were conclusory and insufficient to establish irreparable harm justifying federal intervention at that early procedural stage.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Appellant organizations brought this suit for injunc-tive and declaratory relief against investigations which appellees, members of the Kentucky Un-American Activities Committee, were allegedly threatening to conduct. They contended that the investigations and accompanying contempt prosecutions would violate various rights, primarily those under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. They did not allege that any of their officers or members had been called as witnesses, or that any subpoenas had been issued, or that any criminal prosecutions had been begun. The allegations of harassment were entirely conclusory. Appellees moved to dismiss, and appellants failed to respond, as was required by local court rules. These rules also stated that “[fjailure to respond may be good grounds for sustaining the motion.” D.
C. W.
D. Ky.
Rule 5 (a).
We hold that in this procedural context the trial court could take appellants’ conclusory allegations as insubstantial and could dismiss the complaint for failure to allege sufficient irreparable injury to justify federal intervention at this early stage. For this reason, the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fanty v. The Commonwealth OF Pa., 551 F.2d 2 (3d Cir. 1977)…e facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.’ ” Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 100, 108, 89 S.Ct. 956, 959, 22 L.Ed.2d 113 (1969), quoting, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 862 (1941). Since the only personal interest the named plaintiffs have ever had is the possibility of…
-
Williams v. W. H. "Pete" McCLELLAN, 569 F.2d 1031 (8th Cir. 1978)…. Since she did not amend her complaint nor respond to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, we do not believe that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint with regard to the request for injunctive relief. Cf. Black Unity League v. Miller, 394 U.S. 100, 89 S.Ct. 766, 22 L.Ed.2d 107 (1969). Williams also sought an order requiring the implementation of criteria in the court’s employment process that conform with the Constitution and Title VII. Clerical positions such as that occupied by Williams ar…