Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lininger v. Piper, 40 F.3d 1235, 1st Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    11 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. It summarizes a case where Edward Lininger appealed a district court ruling in favor of Alexander Piper. The appeals court found Lininger's appeal to be without merit and frivolous. It upheld the Massachusetts statutes being challenged as constitutional and not depriving Lininger of property. The court imposed double costs and $200 in attorneys' fees on Lininger due to his frivolous appeal and history of baseless litigation. The court affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of Piper.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1994-11-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 40 F.3d 1235 Docket: 94-1639

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. It summarizes a case where Edward Lininger appealed a district court ruling in favor of Alexander Piper. The appeals court found Lininger's appeal to be without merit and frivolous. It upheld the Massachusetts statutes being challenged as constitutional and not depriving Lininger of property. The court imposed double costs and $200 in attorneys' fees on Lininger due to his frivolous appeal and history of baseless litigation. The court affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of Piper.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views2 pages

    Lininger v. Piper, 40 F.3d 1235, 1st Cir. (1994)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. It summarizes a case where Edward Lininger appealed a district court ruling in favor of Alexander Piper. The appeals court found Lininger's appeal to be without merit and frivolous. It upheld the Massachusetts statutes being challenged as constitutional and not depriving Lininger of property. The court imposed double costs and $200 in attorneys' fees on Lininger due to his frivolous appeal and history of baseless litigation. The court affirmed the district court's ruling in favor of Piper.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    40 F.

    3d 1235

    NOTICE: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 states unpublished


    opinions may be cited only in related cases.
    Edward LININGER, Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    Alexander R. PIPER, III, Defendant, Appellee.
    No. 94-1639.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    First Circuit.
    Nov. 25, 1994.

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE


    DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Frank H. Freedman, Chief
    U.S. District Judge ]
    Edward Lininger on brief pro se.
    John A. Agostini and Cain, Hibbard, Myers & Cook on brief for appellee.
    D.Mass.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before Selya, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Boudin,
    Circuit Judge.
    Per Curiam.

    Plaintiff's appeal is meritless. The statutes plaintiff challenges, Mass. G. L. ch.


    187, Secs. 1-3, are not unconstitutional and do not deprive plaintiff of property.
    By preventing plaintiff from acquiring from defendant an easement by
    prescription, the statutes have not taken from plaintiff anything he has ever
    owned or been entitled to.

    Because this appeal is frivolous, and in view of plaintiff's repeated, baseless


    litigation, we impose double costs and $ 200 in attorneys' fees. Fed. R. App. P.

    38.
    3

    Affirmed.

    You might also like