BLACK UNITY LEAGUE OF KENTUCKY V. MILLER, 394 U. S. 100 (1969)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 394 U. S. 100
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/394/100/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/394/100/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Black Unity League of Kentucky v. Miller, 394 U.S. 100 (1969)
Black Unity League of Kentucky v. Miller
No. 892
Decided March 3, 1969
394 U.S. 100
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Syllabus
Dismissal of appellant organizations' suit for injunctive and declaratory relief against threatened investigations by Kentucky Un-American Activities Committee upheld as appellant failed to respond to motion to dismiss as required by local court rules, and trial court could thus take conclusory allegations of irreparable injury as insubstantial, and not justifying federal intervention.
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant organizations brought this suit for injunctive 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 "[f]ailure 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.