In Re Herndon

394 U.S. 399, 89 S. Ct. 1107, 22 L. Ed. 2d 367, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2157
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 19, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 394 U.S. 399 (In Re Herndon) 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
In Re Herndon, 394 U.S. 399, 89 S. Ct. 1107, 22 L. Ed. 2d 367, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2157 (1968).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The appeal in Hadnott v. Amos, ante, p. 358, decided today, was argued with the motion filed by appellants on November 19, 1968, “for an order to show cause why Judge Herndon should not be held in contempt and for other relief.” 393 U. S. 996.

On September 18, 1968, the three-judge court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining appropriate Alabama officials from using any ballots at the general election of November 5, 1968 which did not include the [400]*400names of the candidates of the National Democratic Party of Alabama (NDPA). This order was dissolved on October 11, 1968, one judge dissenting. 295 F. Supp. 1003. The appellants sought interim relief from this Court pending appeal, and on October 14, 1968, we entered an order that: “The application for restoration of temporary relief is granted pending oral argument on the application . . . 393 U. S. 815 (1968). Oral argument was heard on October 18, and on October 19 we entered an order that: “The order entered on October 14, 1968, restoring temporary relief is continued pending action upon the jurisdictional statement which has been filed.” 393 U. S. 904. Nevertheless, Judge Herndon, who was responsible for the preparation of the Greene County ballot for local offices, did not place the NDPA candidates for such offices on the ballot.

We conclude that decision on the motion should await timely initiation and completion of appropriate proceedings in the District Court to determine whether Judge Herndon’s failure to place NDPA candidates on the ballot constituted contempt of the order of September 18 of the District Court. Decision on the motion is therefore postponed.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
394 U.S. 399, 89 S. Ct. 1107, 22 L. Ed. 2d 367, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-herndon-scotus-1968.