Ex parte James

Supreme Court

Ex parte James

287 U.S. 572, 53 S. Ct. 114, 77 L. Ed. 503, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 59

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 7, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 287 U.S. 572 (Ex parte James) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex parte James, 287 U.S. 572, 53 S. Ct. 114, 77 L. Ed. 503, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 59 (1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Upon consideration of the return of the re[573]*573spondent to the rule to show cause heretofore issued in this matter, it is ordered that the motion of the petitioner for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the respondent to call to his assistance two other federal judges, in the manner provided by § 380, title 28, U. S. Code, to hear and determine the applications for interlocutory and final injunction in a cause entitled Charles Clay James v. Horace Frierson, jr., et ah, be, and the same is hereby, denied, in view of the fact that it would be entirely impracticable to convene the specially constituted District Court and to procure a hearing in time to make any decree effective prior to the general election.

Messrs. John Randolph Neal and Henry Nathan Camp, Jr., for petitioner. Messrs. J. J. Lynch, James A. Fowler, and J. H. Frantz for respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Upon consideration of the return of the re[573]*573spondent to the rule to show cause heretofore issued in this matter, it is ordered that the motion of the petitioner for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the respondent to call to his assistance two other federal judges, in the manner provided by § 380, title 28, U. S. Code, to hear and determine the applications for interlocutory and final injunction in a cause entitled Charles Clay James v. Horace Frierson, jr., et ah, be, and the same is hereby, denied, in view of the fact that it would be entirely impracticable to convene the specially constituted District Court and to procure a hearing in time to make any decree effective prior to the general election.

Messrs. John Randolph Neal and Henry Nathan Camp, Jr., for petitioner. Messrs. J. J. Lynch, James A. Fowler, and J. H. Frantz for respondent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 U.S. 572, 53 S. Ct. 114, 77 L. Ed. 503, 1932 U.S. LEXIS 59, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-james-scotus-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack