Jones v. Healing

Supreme Court

Jones v. Healing

373 U.S. 758

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided June 3, 1963·No. No. 985·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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.

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

Pincite

373 U.S. 758 (Jones v. Healing) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related