Holding v. Blankenship

Supreme Court

Holding v. Blankenship

387 U.S. 94, 87 S. Ct. 1418, 18 L. Ed. 2d 585, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1487

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 15, 1967

Docket1088

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 387 U.S. 94 (Holding v. Blankenship) 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

Holding v. Blankenship, 387 U.S. 94, 87 S. Ct. 1418, 18 L. Ed. 2d 585, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1487 (1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Probable jurisdiction noted as to Question 1. The judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma entered November 4,1966, is reversed insofar as it adjudged provisions of §§ 1040.1 to 1040.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes to be constitutional. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58. Treating the nonappealable issue presented by Question 2 as if contained in a petition for a writ of certiorari, the petition is denied. See Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, 512.

Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the denial of certiorari as to Question 2, but would affirm the judgment of the District Court as to Question 1. Mr. Justice White would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.

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

Per Curiam.

Probable jurisdiction noted as to Question 1. The judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma entered November 4,1966, is reversed insofar as it adjudged provisions of §§ 1040.1 to 1040.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes to be constitutional. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58. Treating the nonappealable issue presented by Question 2 as if contained in a petition for a writ of certiorari, the petition is denied. See Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, 512.

Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the denial of certiorari as to Question 2, but would affirm the judgment of the District Court as to Question 1. Mr. Justice White would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 U.S. 94, 87 S. Ct. 1418, 18 L. Ed. 2d 585, 1967 U.S. LEXIS 1487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holding-v-blankenship-scotus-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack