Legal Opinion

Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided May 20, 1968No. 1238PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Per curiam

A three-judge federal court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281, determined that plaintiff’s claim was not “one which must be heard by a three-judge court.” 285 F. Supp. 85, 87. It also ruled that the relief sought by plaintiff was not warranted. The district judge in whose court the case was originally filed adopted the action of the court as his own. The resulting situation is similar, we think, to that which results when a single judge declines to convene a three-judge court and denies relief: an appeal lies to the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, and not to this Court.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Schackman v. ArneberghSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Wilson v. City of Port LavacaDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1968

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Jon Tom Staton v. James K. MayesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977
  3. Robert H. Hargrave v. Shellie McKinneyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  4. Clarence Jackson v. Hon. Emett C. Choate, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of FloridaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
  5. Sellers v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API