# Motion to Dismiss or Affirm — Nave v. City of Seattle

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_0861%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Motion to Dismiss or Affirm
- **Published:** January 1, 1967
- **Citation:** 385 U.S. 450

## Text

_ CHaRixs A. Nave, Ap if we
"78. “Z

;

Tue Crry or. Suattin, 4g vn ¢ wk

Gusgt AGS

gud ‘egutn A et 4

In The

Supreme Court of the United Genie
OctToBER TERM 1966

a Fé

CHARLES A. Nave, Appellant,
vs.
THE City or SEATTLE, Appellee.

On APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
ABTETE OF WASHINGTON

MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM

A. L. NEWBOULD
Corporation Counsel

CHARLES R. N ELSON
Assistant .-
Attorneys for Appellee
. The City of Seattle
10th Floor
Seattle Municipal Building
Seattle, Washington 98104
JUniper 3-2338 ee

. THE ARGUS -PRESS. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
\ | *:. <> east a:

IRIEL TS i aia ac cms RTI RN Tieteny Moe

en ovate — . . tan - a a eo ny ee ee ee ie Qe oe. tee Rep ee ee ee ee _ — —_ ee

ARIS UBT NR

RINNE isis sciennieseeipsaeiaicenieisiniaenbinaaien inieapeini ine
SN, i eee ee ae ae 3
IIE —_ «— ae — o—— o——_ 2

en

7
Co. of Maryland v.. United States, 187 U.S. 315,
23 S. Ct. 120, 47 L. Ed 194; Lindsey v. Lewy,
9 Cir., 149 F.2d. 899. . i f
In his J urisdictional iii appellant seems to
be maintaining that Section 1 of the Fourteenth _
Amendment to the United States Constitution guaran-
tees his ‘‘inviolate right’’ to a jury trial as provided .
for in Article I, Section 21 of the Washington State

Constitution. |

Appellant in his Jurisdictional Statement, lape
dix “@” p. XXX states that ‘‘The above portion of
the Fourteenth Amendment makes valid laws of the
State mandatory to each person therein. In its ac-
ceptance of Washington as a State, Congress accepted
Article L Sec. 21, of the State Constitution, and en-
forcible by Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.’’ No author-
ity. has been cited to support such novel contention,
and it is submitted that the same is not tenable. |

In the case of Fay v. New Y ork, 332 U.S. 261, 67
S.Ct. 1613, 91 L. Ed. 2043, it was held that due process
and equal protection are not denied to a defendant
in a criminal case tried by a jury taken from a special
panel, and although state constitutional rights were

not specifically discussed the court spelled out the

overall relation of the Fourteenth Amendment with
regard to state court juries as follows:

“The function of this federal eourt under the
Fourteenth Amendment in reference to state

8

juries is not to prescribe. procedures but is es-
sentially to protect the intérity of the trial pro-
cess by whatever method the state sees fit to.
employ .. .”’

CONCLUSION

We respectfully submit that the appellant presents
' no question for the decision of this court; and that
the granting of a summary judgment against appel-
lant is not violative of any of appellant’s Federal (or
State) constitutional rights. Therefore, the appeal -
should be dismissed, or the judgment below affirmed.

Xppellee has not overlooked the fact that appellant’s
Jurisdictional Statement is replete with burdensome,
irrelevant, immaterial, and scandalous matter which is .'
of a particularly repugnant character with regard to
statements made castigating and vilifying the superior
court judge hearing appellant ’s case, the state supreme
court (e.g., J urisdictional Statement pp. 3, 10, 11, 12,
Appendix ‘‘A’’, pp. IV, XI, XII, Appendix “‘B”’, p.
XVII) as well as with regard to various unsupported
and erroneous allegations of criminal and other mis-
conduct on the part of appellee (e.g., Jurisdictional
Statement pp. 10, 22, 26, Appendix “‘A’’, pp. IV, VI,
Ix, Appendix “B” pp. XVIII, XXIX), and ap-
pellee therefore requests that said Jurisdictional
Statement be disregarded and stricken by the court

Ss

9

by reason of the inclusion of such matter ‘therein.

Respectfully submitted, . +

A. L. NEWBOULD
Corporation Counsel

CHARLES R, NELSON
Assistant

Attorneys for Appellee
The City of Seattle

10th Floor

Seattle Municipal Building
Seattle, Washington 98104
J Uniper 3-2338

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_0861%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.