Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Perez v. Ledesma

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 23, 1971No. 60Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mr. Justice Brennan,

with whom Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Marshall join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

This case presents questions regarding federal court intervention affecting the administration of state criminal laws that were not presented in No. 2, Younger v. Harris, ante, p. 37; No. 7, Samuels v. Mackell, and No. 9, Fernandez v. Mackell, ante, p. 66; No. 4, Boyle v. Landry, ante, p. 77; No. 83, Byrne v. Karalexis, post, p. 216; and No. 41, Dyson v. Stein, post, p. 200, all decided today.

Appellees operate a newsstand in the Parish of St. Bernard, Louisiana. On January…

2Cases cited61 opinions

  1. Ex Parte YoungSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  2. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  4. Flast v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957

56 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