Bliss v. Shore

2 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

    312 F. Supp. 1 (E.D. Pa. 1969)   Cited 32 times
    Finding affiant's application legally insufficient where the application failed to state the facts of affiant's poverty with any degree of particularity, definiteness or certainty

    It is well settled that a declaratory judgment action cannot be used as a substitute for the prosecution of an appeal or a motion for new trial in the trial court. Clark v. Memolo, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 65, 174 F.2d 978 (1949); United States ex rel. Bennett v. Illinois, 356 F.2d 878 (7th Cir. 1966); Bliss v. Shore, 279 F. Supp. 646 (W.D.Pa. 1968). This is especially true in a situation where an attempt is made to substitute the federal declaratory judgment action for the normal pattern of review in a state court.

  2. Holiday Inns of America, Inc. v. Holiday House, Inc.

    279 F. Supp. 648 (W.D. Pa. 1968)   Cited 5 times

    In such a matter therefore declaratory relief in the District Court should be withheld. Bliss v. Shore, W.D.Pa., decided February 6, 1968, 279 F. Supp. 646; Foti v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 217, 225, 84 S.Ct. 306, 11 L.Ed.2d 281 (1962); Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714, 720, 87 S.Ct. 1404, 18 L.Ed.2d 475 (1967). Defendant persuasively contends that the last named case is a holding that the trademark act establishes such a comprehensive statutory scheme, which should not be disrupted by extraneous procedures except in a clear case (such as Simmonds, supra) where declaratory relief is required in the interest of justice.