Chiplin Enters. v. City of Lebanon

From Conservapedia

In Chiplin Enters. v. City of Lebanon, 712 F.2d 1524 (1st Cir. 1983), the First Circuit held that the outright violation of state law by local officials in denying a license does not automatically raise a federal claim. Roy v. City of Augusta, 712 F.2d 1517, 1523 (1st Cir. 1983). Although the Court found that the plaintiff in that case, who had been denied a renewal of his pool hall license, had stated a claim, it was not because the license had been denied for improper reasons. Rather plaintiff presented facts -- including statements critical of defendants by the state Supreme Court -- which indicated that defendants had flouted a command of that court to issue a license to the plaintiff, and that because of special circumstances the state courts were now unavailable to correct the wrong.

The Court found that no such situation was present in the Chiplin case. Chiplin prevailed in the state courts, and as a result now has its permit, and its building.

The Court conceded that additional factors might give rise to genuine constitutional issues in cases of this sort. In Packish v. McMurtrie, 697 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1983), a firefighter alleged that he had been denied reimbursement for medical expenses in retaliation for his published criticisms of town officials. While rejecting any due process claim, the Court acknowledged that plaintiff would have a viable first amendment claim if he could show the denial was, in fact, retaliatory for exercise of constitutionally protected freedoms. The Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants on the ground that plaintiff had not made out any such improper basis. Similarly, in Manego v. Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank, 692 F.2d 174 (1st Cir.1982), the Court considered plaintiff's claim that he had been denied an entertainment license because he was black. There the Court also accepted that plaintiff had at least stated a valid claim, although not one which he was able to prove.