*1 tioning creditor, Law Restatement Chase, commentators. in the involun- n; tary Judgments IB 68 Comment adjudication, of Moore, and that the trustee Practice Federal allegedly ¶0.443[5] should be barred his incon- Estop (1961); Scott, Collateral sistent asserting 3921-23 statements from col- by Judgment, pel estoppel against 56 Harv.L.Rev. 11-12 lateral her. Note, (1942); 39 Va.L.Rev. Case Reversed and remanded with instruc- Note, (1953). Developments But see tions to order bankruptcy referee Law, Judicata, 65 Harv.L. Res Evelyn’s opposition entertain speci- However, these Rev. objection fication of discharge. number to her contrary apparently authorities do either justify position, or attempt to their proposition else stated the grounds judgment on alternative based necessary precludes issues decided
either necessary precludes in each or no issues ground, only apparently one content proposition the statement compels acceptance of alter the former agree propo native. While we with stated, present sition as circum Johnny HARPER, Petitioner-Appellant, stances we choose the alternative latter expressed for the reasons above. George KROPP, Warden, A. State Prison Nor this situation controlled of Southern Michigan, Respondent- holding resting cases that decisions Appellee. independent grounds alternative are stare No. 19567. ground. independent decisis as to each See, e.g., States, Massachusetts v. United United States Court of 333 U.S. L.Ed. Sixth Circuit. Dragor (1948) ; Shipping Corp. v. Union May 18, 1970. Co., 1967). (9 F.2d Tank Car 722 Cir. decisis, questions of
In stare law de- grounds cided in each the alternative be reconsidered when issues arise, thereby
again es- and the rules or overturned
tablished can modified compelling reasons.
if there are prior estoppel,
case collateral
judgment precludes reconsideration (with certain the issues concluded exceptions).
narrow finding Rosling’s Judge
Since Evelyn’s
of delay intent actual to hinder necessarily
her creditors was found only
in connection with independent the three one grounds establishing bankruptcy, finding
of given this cannot be present liti conclusive effect gation application as to her for a dis Judge charge. Ros Since we hold finding ling’s is not Eve conclusive as to
lyn’s intent, actual we need not consider Evelyn’s other contentions that the trus
tee, Schwartz, privity peti- lacks *2 peti-
County.
considered the
The court"
appeal
application
leave
tion as an
granted
re-
court then
and
leave.
Michigan Court
the cause to the
manded
Michigan
pursuant
Appeals
General
865.1(7).
Court Rule
pe-
Michigan
Appeals
In
Court of
statutes un-
that the
titioner contended
violate the
convicted
der
he was
which
Equal
the Four-
Protection Clause
punished
Amendment since
teenth
a minimum
him with
act committed
years imprisonment
twenty
sentence of
impris-
sentence
life
and a maximum
onment,
act, if
a
which
committed
“having
person
a
classified as a
343,”
provision
under the
of Act
license
any
punished
minimum
be
could
without
upof
sentence and a maximum sentence
years.
to ten
Mich.,
Detroit,
Rosenthal,
B.
David
rejected by the
claim was
Petitioner’s
petitioner-appellant.
Michigan
wrote
Court of
which
Gen.,
Atty.
Freeman, Asst.
Stewart H.
opinions. People Harper, Mich.
two
v.
respondent-appellee.
Lansing, Mich., for
(1965).
480,
App.
heroin be because the state of li- cannot person selling Michigan, any heroin cense to sell heroin. See They be an that state would unlicensed U.S.C. conclude that person selling son would violation heroin would therefore *3 petitioner person” was con- statute under which “unlicensed within the mean- 18.1122) subject (M.S.A. 335.152, to Mich.Comp.Laws. and of victed Section imposed penalty upon the him. It Initially, it should be observed that statutory there is no that classi- follows eight justices sitting five of the on the regards persons the fication of as sale Michigan Supreme Court at the time this Michigan, petitioner’s of heroin in ease was appeal decided on direct were equal protection claim of of of the denial opinion statutory that scheme laws must fail. does result a classification judgment The is affirmed. regard People to sales of heroin. Harper, v. Mich. N.W.2d 645 MeCREE, Judge (dissenting). Circuit (1967). However, jus- two of the five respectfully I dissent. The statute un- tices considered the classification reason- appellant der of which was un- convicted joined remaining able and with the three provides, lawful sale of justices majority pur- to form a for the part: tinent pose affirming appellant’s of conviction. Although interpretation this Any person having these of not a license un- by provisions Supreme statutes a divided der the of of No. 343 Act * * * may binding Court upon us, not be Public Acts of 1937 * ** (1965), Am.Jur.2d any Courts I do who shall sell narcotic comity think that as a drug matter of guilty it should deemed shall be fel- great weight be accorded ony, by upon federal conviction thereof shall court by concerned punished with the imprisonment be construction of in the Michigan statutes. prison state for a term less of not years than 20 nor more than life. Furthermore, upon analy- independent Mich.Comp.Laws, Sec. 335.152. statutory sis of scheme, I would hold hand, On the other Section 335.52 and that it creates a classification with re- 335.70, provide, respec- Mich.Comp.Laws, gard to sales of heroin. Sections 335.52 pertinent part: tively, 335.70, Mich.Comp.Laws, are direct- any persons person “duly It shall ed at be unlawful licensed under * * * duly provisions provisions” licensed under the Act who * * * * * * any drug.”1 this act “sell sell narcotic The “test of guilt drug, except narcotic as under author- [these is not sections] wheth- ized in person act. this er the licensed can sell heroin but People whether he is licensed.” Har Any person duly licensed under the per, at 379 Mich. at N.W.2d preceding provisions of this act who dissenting). (Adams, Nothing J. any provision violates of this act shall suggests statutes that the nature guilty felony, by punishable of a drug involved in an illicit sale alters the imprisonment prison in the state According- licensed status the seller. years by not more than 10 or a fine person ly, heroin, if a licensed $10,000.00 is by more sells than he or both imprisonment. subject such fine and penalty to a maximum of ten years prison $10,000 majority and a The fine in- reasons that this statu- tory twenty years scheme impris- does not stead of the result in a classi- to life regard fication with to sales of heroin penalty provided onment for unlicensed significant It is that unlawful, immedi expressly provides section that ately preceding 335.52, section drug Mich. heroin is a narcotic within Comp.Laws, declaring meaning the section Mich.Comp.Laws, sales the Act. drugs by persons narcotic 335.51(12), licensed Sec.
Ill unli- Mich.Comp. directed 335.152, the sections whereas by section vendors suppress il- used are censed Laws. usage legitimate movement. classifica- this hold I also would prohibited act unreasonable. tion is difficulty justification with this 335.52, Mich.Comp.Laws, is by Section ignores a sale the fact is that it by prohibited precisely same as by person consti- heroin a licensed Only Mich.Comp.Laws. 335.152, Section trafficking illegitimate in narcotic tutes imposed commission penalty for the essentially drugs different from and is no prohibited is different. fact, person. by an unlicensed a sale singles particular de- out a the licensed the sale When a greater treatment, his ac- special bears since condemnation serve class drugs ac- justifying preference to narcotic sanctioned cess burden *4 group. the favored the state. corded purpose for which the classification class Hence, mand is Equal islation, burdens quires necessarily things though that, ality out. To be discriminatory imposes drawn to achieve “The Constitution * * * The in the nature it establishes. Protection Clause more of Equal legislation have “some which are defining upon not a the distinctions to be requirement of some permissible apply sure, were defined classes Protection demand that application within a a class equally the the same.” treated state may impose special of the different does constitutional relevance to * * [*] ends. law than subject to all does class not in law Clause that a statute in order persons. But *** in require require singled It also ration- to non- fact leg- the are the the de- re- as is parate need for a the ports persuasive. narcotic unlicensed censed the narcotics laws is much unlicensed statistically unlicensed penalty provided the narcotics laws. question, however, whether this legitimate Again, The suppression such the state also contends that persons. treatment on licensed drugs. I find the state’s persons to the severe imposition persons traffic persons persons greater the the The incidence of The accorded licensed high in narcotic illegitimate than may is deterrent persons who violate state supported incidence of justify it points higher argument is violations statutes. less to achieve among traffic drugs by goal sup- the dis out subject- penalty by among severe that un- the il- li in I Yeager, 384 U.S. Rinaldi made.” deal narcotic licensed to A 1497, 1499, 308-309, training drugs has, by of his reason L.Ed.2d 577 background, position placed in a been by His access to and use the trust state. present case, the state would In the drugs authorized. of narcotic has been penalties justify disparity im- the although Accordingly, of vio- the number ground posed act the same on the persons lations committed licensed designed that are statutes par- low, is a violation all purposes. accomplish The different against ticularly serious offense defining responsibilities sections state; and, arguably, perpetrator legitimate regulate persons licensed more, drugs, usage subjected to should movement narcotic the offense higher presented difficulty in- statistics other is among nationally unlicensed the ratio of arrests show cidence arrests may merely greater persons compared efforts reflect of unlicensed as sons expended by law enforce- of narcotics resources licensed violations regard approximately agencies with to detection 1. Of ment laws was course, problem laws is with this statistic of unlicensed violators of one apprehen- those toward the it not indicate to what extent than directed does An- of licensed violators. in convictions. sion arrests resulted punishment than un- less, severe person. licensed people punish a different
To two same
manner for the commission in their status of a difference because pro- equal repugnant concept of to the law.
tection under protection “equal guaranty of protection pledge
the laws is a * * * equal When the laws.” unequal who lays
law an hand those intrinsically have committed ** *, has
quality of offense discrimination
made as invidious a particular race
ifas it had selected a nationality oppressive
or treat- Oklahoma, U.S.
ment. Skinner v. L.Ed. S.Ct. *5 America,
UNITED STATES Plaintiff-Appellee, JOHNSTON,
Arthur Milton Defendant- Appellant.
No. 17416.
United States Court of Seventh Circuit.
14,May