Legal Opinion

Martin v. Walton

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided December 11, 1961No. 30PublishedCited by 86 opinions

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

  1. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NMSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Dent v. West VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  3. Graves v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. Phelps v. Board of Ed. of West New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  5. Martin v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1960

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

3Cited by86 opinions

  1. Manzanares v. BellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1974
  2. People v. BelousCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  3. State Ex Rel. Schneider v. LiggettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1978
  4. 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
  5. Sanders v. RussellCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1968

81 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