# Respondent Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Meredith v. John Deere Plow Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0684%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Respondent Brief in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1959 - **Citation:** 359 U.S. 909 ## Text FILE COPY i Otice Supreme Court, U.S. 7] pee ss LD ae JAN 24 1959 Ga. * . . ae e TRACES RRO MENG, Clerk’ |: Supreme Court of the United’ States — October Term 1958 No. 915 aint Civil . "a M. M. MERE pUiHl, ‘ ; Petitiones ‘ana Appe lhant ms in ‘ Vs. , JOHN DEERE PLOW COMPANY OF MOLINE, ee x i? I. NOS. A. 4 =-¢y c Rayaexp AL SMITH, : 301s: Park Butldine, Council Blutts, lowe. Pr ere y for Be spramid ae ; OF Counsel: oo) Prrer EK. Mareterti. 8) 1032-42 Onlaha National Bani Ide, (dinate, Nebrask: i. m Cocane Peintinc Company, Omdha-- The Caretul Law. Boet Printers -lied U re cument.. o 2 . a i 7 “ INDEN . rg ; . Paves 1 Summary of Points to be Argued and Authorities Re- _— sen sdsekionihenie ; = Bez a) Point I. Pomt U1. / Point TH. P oint IV. Point V. Appendix Appendix * Statement of Case ae ee Claini’ of Cause of Action Has seen Fnlly Adjudicated. 0. | « «& Judgment In. The Preceding Cases Are “Res Adjudieata A. Court OK Phe United States May. Grant -An Injunctidn To End Litigation and Re- quires Petitioner To Accept And Abide By The Previous Decisions Of The Court A Court Of The United States May Grant An Injunction” To Stay Proceedings In A State Court Where Necessary To Protect “Or Effectuate Its Judgments... Writs Of Certiorari Are Only Grairted Un- der Special Circumstances And ‘In Cases Of General Importance _. , Agere es | Shines C ASES C TED American > aaa Bank & Tru: t Company vs. Tats. sig, 7th Cir, 255 Fed. 2d 7a ee. Angel vs. ‘Dallincton, 330.U. S. 188. Denton vs. City of Carrollton, oth cM, 235 Fed. 2d Exparte Crandall, 7th Gir. 55 Fed. 2d 969 10 li CASES CIT ED-- Continued . 9 | Paes Federal Home. Loan Bank of San i rancisco Vs. Halt oth Cir. 995 Fed. 2d: A Se my Mee > _ P . 2 . Supreme Court of the United States - ME ME MEREDITH, ‘ { Petsiteier and Apgie tliat Die best’. JOHN DEERE PLOW COMPANY OF MOLINE, — ILLANGUS. A Corporation, ; p3 Be epromede wi aie App LE ’ Beli. a | we ae © e RESPONDENT’ Dae RESISTING PETITION . FOR CERTIORARI STATEMENT OF THE CASE This action was originally Drought ptr thee Vo aritere Stites Distriet Court for the Southern Pistriet of Powe, Te enor petitioner there front eomtiiing. eomimeterns oP prosecuting and proceeding agaist respondent im Stat: mor Federal Court. artempting to relitigate: the sigan eiiuss of action Gr anv right. question or facet redatimg te the 122, 130-181. : gJugel rs, so, rs. isd, United States vs. tsp Pina Tne. Sth Cir. 178 Red. 2d 204. 340 US. 56 affirming. ea ~ The judgments in the precedmg suits of MoM. Mer- ith vs. Jolin Deere Place Company are res jadicata as to-the vahdity and’ enforceability and the ‘rights of the parties under the alleged contract which petitioner insists tlhrat he intends to again litigate ina State Court, M..M. Miredith &s. John Deere Plow Compas, Sth Cir. a4 Fed. 2d rs ah a ae Meredith Qt Fishin Decre Pinu oo Sth Cir. *e 206 Ped, 2d 196. : Heiser UN: W oodruff, may ig S. 62h, ‘ (as ange He Live Company rs, Federal Trails Coan: mission, Sth Cir W128 Fede 2d ds3- ; U.S. vs: Muns my Jue, Sth Cir. WS Fed. (2d 20g, 206-200 4 Il. A court of the United States may grant an injune-" a . a tion to enjoin petitioner from continuing , commencing, or — and proceeding against respondent in State r Federal Court, attempting to relitigate the same cause re action or any right, question or fact .relating to. the _ es subject matter thereof, which have Ween previously de- cided in-three decisions, to make an end of litigation and to require the petitioner to accept and abide by the de- cisions of the Court. Toledo Scale eo rs. C ompuling Scale Com- pany; 261 U. S. 399, 423-426. .. ; ae - Federal Honie Loan Bank of San Francisco us. Hall, oth Cir., 225 Fed, 2d 349, B85.. » Miller vs, Ellis, 232 Towa 558, .5 N. W: 2d 928. . “WV. A court of the United States may grant 4n injunction ° to stay proceedings in a- State Court, where: neéessary, to protect ‘or effectuate its judginents._ \ ‘ re - 2S U.S. C. AL, Sectiohi 2283. Jackson vs. Carter Oil Company, 10th Cir. 179 * Fed. 2d 524. Cert. denied, 340 U.S, 812. American National Bank & Trus st Company 2 a Pee Tth.€ ir. a 290 Fed. 2d 765, 769, ‘se | HL OW. De nton, et alo vs, City of Car rollton, oth psi 235 Fed. od 481, “st. yy rparte Crandall? 7th Cir. 95 Fed. 24 969. . ee zt . Writs of Certiorari, to review judgment of the Courts of Appeal, axe only granted. under special cireumstances, f and’ such jurisdiction should: be sparingly exercised, and only in eases of peeuliar gravity and ge ‘eral importance, ‘to secure uniformity of decis ions, ‘Hamilton: bite it Bho: Co. vs, Wolfe Brosad Co. 240 TLS. POL, 257, 25s. a State of. Ohio ex rel, Sene y rs. Swift & Co,, a ‘Ea, a re ery A grure sag Relations Boaid rs, Pittsbirgie S, 5. . AO et. . 498. , = i oe o0—-————--— : a ’ ARGUMENT Point I. | : This is the fourtih time this. matter . in one form or, another, has been beford this Court on petition for. writ Of certiorari, This faet ‘aduue should: be strong me idence that petitioner, M. M. Meredith, has had his, day% in court, that~ the ‘question of law has’ ‘be ‘en fully considered and ‘that there should and must bé an\ end to litigation. ‘In each of ‘the three wiiseediaas CANES, petitioner has sduight to establish a contractual relationship between the parties upon which to base either a claim for damages & or equitable relief, The: District Court.and the. Court. of Appeals in seach case have patiently aud: ‘to pet ~tioner *, appearing pro se, that they: have eiven kareful con- sideration to his complaints and that he has no\cause of “ action. The mattd as heen, Fully adjudicated, \ 2 é. The Court, in J/. 1/. hy redith vs.dohu Dew re Plow. Company of Moline, Minoie/ 206 Fed. 2d 196, said that the plaintit!’s claim in that ease “six Ne same as that, Jae ‘ ee = ; 3 a whichy was the subject matter of his complaint which was dealt with in the opinion of the Court in M. M. Meredith John Deere Plow Company of | Moline, Mlinois, 8th we ir, 185 Fed. 2d 481, and the parties are identical. “s \ Pi ‘The Court theri added: ‘The Distrid Court, in rm missing the plaintiff's complaint in the. instant’ case relie1 od ‘upon the decision of this court as having put an“end to this* contr oversy.”’ NXgain in MM: M. Meredith us, John Deere Plow Com: : pong of Moline, ‘Illinois, 244 Fed. 2d 9, the Court reviewed the two previous suits, and.reférred to Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U..8. €. A. ( Ap- pendix A), anc held that the prior dismissals operated ° as an adjudication’ upon the merits of ‘petitioner’s claims. This rule has been clearly: announced in the ‘ease of Angel vs, Bullington, 330 ‘Uv. S. 183, 192-193, in which it Was said that: b ; . : ¢ ' ~s he doctrine of res’ judicata reltecte the refusal of law to tolerate’ needless litigation. - Litigation is ‘needless if, by fair process, a controversy has once - gone through the courts to conclusion, (Citing cases.) | And it-has gone through, if issues that were or could | have been dealt with in af earlier litigation are raised anew between the s sameA/parties.” etitioner has presented no valid reason which would Warrant the Court in issuing a Writ of Certiorari. The petition herein should be denied. “ ae e Respectfully submitted, . Raymonp A. SMITH, 301-8 Park Buifding, — Couneil Bluffs, Lowa: ha ‘ a e lftorney lor Respondent, ~ Of Counsel: Perer I. Marcuerti, 1032-42 Omaha Natl. Bank-Bldg,, ~ Omaha, Nebraska, % a -. APPENDIX A, Rule 41. ‘Dismissal of Actions. “-(b) Involuntary Dismissal: Etfed hereof, or failure of the plaintiff to, prosecute or to comply with these fules: or any order of court, acdefendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim ‘against him. After the Plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence, the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not eranted, my niove for a disniissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plain tiff has shown no right to relief. Ivan a by the court witl out a jury the court ay facts may then determine them and ror ion tried rrer of the Ger judgement & against the plainti® or may decline to render any judgment -until ‘the close of all: the evidence., If thy . court renders judgment on the ‘merits against the plaintiff, the court shall make findings ag provided in Rule 52(a). Unless the court invits order for dis- jnissal otherwise specifies, a dismissalgunder this sub- division and any dismissal. not provided for in this rule, other than’ a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or for improper venue, operates as an adjudication upon the merits. As amended Dee. 27, 1946, effective March 19, 1948, ‘ Sao --APPENDIXB. .— ~ U. 8. C. A. 28, Section: 2283. Stay. of State court proceediiigs. A ecaurt of the United States may not grant an injune- tion to stay proceedings in a State court exeept as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its Jurisdiction, or to protect or Cate effectuate its judgments. —June 25, TDAR: ©. 646, ‘ 62 C. “ IC gs "2 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386419_0684%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.