Martin v. Walton
Supreme Court of the United States
1Per curiam
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Upon plenary consideration, we are satisfied that, both on their face and as applied to appellant, Kan. Gen. Stat., 1949, § 7-104, and amended Kan. Sup. Ct. Rules 41 and 54 promulgated by the Supreme Court of Kansas, acting within its competence under state law, are not beyond the allowable range of *26state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U. S. 425; Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232, 239; Hitchcock v. Collenberg, 353 U. S. 919;…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NMSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Dent v. West VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Graves v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Phelps v. Board of Ed. of West New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Martin v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1960
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by86 opinions
- Manzanares v. BellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1974
- People v. BelousCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- State Ex Rel. Schneider v. LiggettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1978
- James E. Sams, Jack L. Paradise, and Daniel J. Birmingham v. Ohio Valley General Hospital Association, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1969
- Sanders v. RussellCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.