Jones v. Healing

Supreme Court

Jones v. Healing

373 U.S. 758

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 3, 1963

DocketNo. 985

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 373 U.S. 758 (Jones v. Healing) 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

Jones v. Healing, 373 U.S. 758 (1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion to substitute Raymond Nakai in the place of Paul Jones as the party appellant in No. 985 and as a party appellee 'in No. 1050 is granted. The motion to substitute-Abbott Sekaquaptewa in the place of Dewey Healing as a party appellee in No. 985 and as a party appellant in No. 1050 is granted. The motion to affirm in No. 985 is granted and the judgment which is common to both cases is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and would decide the cases only after argument.

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

Per Curiam.

The motion to substitute Raymond Nakai in the place of Paul Jones as the party appellant in No. 985 and as a party appellee 'in No. 1050 is granted. The motion to substitute-Abbott Sekaquaptewa in the place of Dewey Healing as a party appellee in No. 985 and as a party appellant in No. 1050 is granted. The motion to affirm in No. 985 is granted and the judgment which is common to both cases is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and would decide the cases only after argument.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 U.S. 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-healing-scotus-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack