Legal Opinion

Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Commission

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 9, 1968No. 375PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Per curiam

A three-judge federal court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281, determined that “there is no jurisdiction for a three-judge court” and entered an order dissolving itself. 284 F. Supp. 950, 956. The single district judge in whose court the case was originally filed considered further and dismissed the case without prejudice under the doctrine of abstention, stating in his memorandum opinion that “[t]he order dissolving the three-judge court is incorporated in this memorandum by reference.” 284 F. Supp. 956, 957. Appellants appeal from both judgments. In these circumstances, we have no…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Wilson v. City of Port LavacaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare CommissionDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1968
  4. Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare CommissionDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1968

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Clarence Jackson v. Hon. Emett C. Choate, U.S. District Judge, Southern District of FloridaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
  3. MTM, Inc. v. BaxleySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Richard Nixon v. Honorable Charles R. Richey, United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1975
  5. Hicks v. Pleasure House, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971

38 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