Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
GRESHAM v. LESLIE et al., 1931 — 50 F.2d 900 · caselaw · US
General
GRESHAM v. LESLIE et al.
50 F.2d 900·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1931
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
GRESHAM v. LESLIE et al.
No. 4542.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
June 25, 1931.
Rehearing Denied July 20, 1931.
Otto Gresham, of Chicago, Ill., pro se.
Richard P. Tinkham and C. B. Tinkham, both of Hammond, Ind., for appellees.
Before EVANS and PAGE, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PAGE, Circuit Judge.]
PAGE, Circuit Judge.
The District Court sustained a demurrer and dismissed appellant’s complaint charging that appellees, as officers of the Lower House of the Indiana Legislature, had damaged him by reason of their refusal to permit action by the -Lower House upon a petition presented by appellant. When filed, the petition was said by appellant to be one for the impeachment of two Indiana circuit court judges, and, fairly considered, it is nothing more. Several times the Supreme Court.of Indiana in construing the Constitution and statutes of that state has held that its Legislature is without power to impeach circuit judges. State v. Patterson, 181 Ind. 660, 105 N. E. 228; State v. Redman, 183 Ind. 332, 109 N. E. 184; State v. Dearth, 201 Ind. 1, 164 N. E. 489.
We are bound by that court’s interpretation of the laws of the state. Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 394; Douglas v. Noble, 261 U. S. 165, 43 S. Ct. 303, 67 L. Ed. 590; Isaacs v. McNeil (C. C.) 44 F. 32, 11 L. R. A. 254.
Affirmed.