Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

575 F. Supp. 1207

First Amendment Foundation v. Village of Brookfield

U.S. District Court

Decided December 19, 1983

U.S. District Court · decided 1983-12-19

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Corporations must be represented in court by attorneys admitted to practice, and may not appear through an officer or other lay representative. Strong Delivery Ministry Association v. Board of Appeals, 543 F.2d 32 (7th Cir.1976). The same rule applies to partnerships and other unincorporated organizations. Move Organization v. United States Department of Justice, 555 F.Supp. 684, 692-93 (E.D.Pa.1983); Tur ner v. American Bar Association, 407 F.Supp. 451, 476 (N.D.Tex., W.D.Pa., N.D.Ind., D.Minn., S.D.Ala., W.D.Wis.1975), aff'd sub nom. Pilla v. American Bar Association, 542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir.1976). But see United States v. Reeves, 431 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir.1970).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 962 F. Supp. 1112 - Runkle v. United States

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1654

Relies on 407 F. Supp. 451 - Turner v. American Bar Ass'n · Daniel M. Pilla and Jerome Daly v. The American Bar Association · Strong Delivery Ministry Association, an Illinois Corporation v. Board of Appeals of Cook County and Mr. George Dunne, President of Cook County Board of Commissioners, Sears, Sucsy & Co., a Delaware Corporation v. Insurance Company of North America, Third-Party v. Westcott Trainor, Third-Party

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-12-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2011

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

601983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

GETZENDANNER, District Judge:

¶2 On its own motion, the court dismisses this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1654. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint in this case states in part:

Plaintiff, THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION is a Partnership of Pro Se Litigants who are citizens of the United States of America and Canada. The First Amendment Foundation is located in Rainy River, Ontario, Canada. Shelly Weisberg is a Partner in the First Amendment Foundation and will appear in Court as a Pro Socio.

¶328 U.S.C. § 1654 provides:

In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.

¶4 Corporations must be represented in court by attorneys admitted to practice, and may not appear through an officer or other lay representative. Strong Delivery Ministry Association v. Board of Appeals, 543 F.2d 32 (7th Cir.1976). The same rule applies to partnerships and other unincorporated organizations. Move Organization v. United States Department of Justice, 555 F.Supp. 684, 692-93 (E.D.Pa.1983); Turner v. American Bar Association, 407 F.Supp. 451, 476 (N.D.Tex., W.D.Pa., N.D. Ind., D.Minn., S.D.Ala., W.D.Wis.1975), aff'd sub nom. Pilla v. American Bar Association, 542 F.2d 56 (8th Cir.1976). But see United States v. Reeves, 431 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir.1970).

¶5 Mr. Weisberg is not a member of the bar of this court, and it is the court’s understanding that he is not an attorney. His appearance on behalf of plaintiff therefore is improper. The order of December 16, 1983, granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, is vacated. The papers *1208 filed on plaintiffs behalf are stricken, and the case is dismissed without prejudice.

¶6 It is so ordered.

/575/fsupp/1207 · .json · Public domain