Home/Supreme Court/Lockhart v. Hoenstine

Lockhart v. Hoenstine

396 U.S. 941, 24 L. Ed. 2d 244, 90 S. Ct. 378, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 285
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 24, 1969
DocketNo. 495
StatusPublished
Cited by115 cases

This text of 396 U.S. 941 (Lockhart v. Hoenstine) 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
Lockhart v. Hoenstine, 396 U.S. 941, 24 L. Ed. 2d 244, 90 S. Ct. 378, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 285 (1969).

Opinion

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

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

Related

Bernard Lumber Co. v. Patrick (In Re Patrick)
265 B.R. 782 (N.D. Ohio, 2001)
Yopollo v. Trombley (In Re DeVincent)
238 B.R. 722 (N.D. Ohio, 1999)
Hunter v. Sowers (In Re Sowers)
229 B.R. 151 (N.D. Ohio, 1998)
Battle v. Whitehurst
831 F. Supp. 522 (E.D. Virginia, 1993)
Turney v. O'Toole
898 F.2d 1470 (Tenth Circuit, 1990)
DeFerro v. Coco
719 F. Supp. 379 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1989)
Jodeco, Inc. v. Hann
674 F. Supp. 488 (D. New Jersey, 1987)
Hodgin v. Agents of Montgomery County
619 F. Supp. 1550 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1985)
Thad D. Lowe v. James E. Letsinger
772 F.2d 308 (Seventh Circuit, 1985)
Coughlin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (In Re Coughlin)
48 B.R. 191 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1985)
Doe v. McFaul
599 F. Supp. 1421 (D. Ohio, 1984)
Martinez v. Winner
548 F. Supp. 278 (D. Colorado, 1982)
O'brien, Ann C. v. Eli Lilly & Company E. R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. The Upjohn Company, and Winthrop Company, Inc
668 F.2d 704 (Third Circuit, 1982)
Argo Welded Products, Inc. v. J. T. Ryerson Steel & Sons, Inc.
528 F. Supp. 583 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1981)
Partee v. Lane
528 F. Supp. 1254 (N.D. Illinois, 1981)
Struthers Patent Corp. v. Nestle Co., Inc.
558 F. Supp. 747 (D. New Jersey, 1981)
Harry M. Ness v. Elizabeth N. Marshall, Individually and in Her Capacity as Mayor of the City of York, Pennsylvania, and James S. A. Bentzel, William L. Smallwood, Elizabeth L. Brooks, Robert G. Leichliter, James R. Vogelsong, Individually and in Their Capacity as Members of the City Council of York, Pennsylvania. Edward C. Roberts v. Elizabeth N. Marshall, Individually and in Her Capacity as Mayor of the City of York, Pennsylvania, and James S. A. Bentzel, William L. Smallwood, Elizabeth L. Brooks, Robert G. Leichliter and James R. Vogelsong, Individually and in Their Capacity as Members of the City Council of York, Pennsylvania. John W. Thompson, Jr. v. Elizabeth N. Marshall, Individually and in Her Capacity as Mayor of the City of York, Pa. And James S. A. Bentzel, William L. Smallwood, Elizabeth L. Brooks, Robert G. Leichliter, James R. Vogelsong, Individually and in Their Capacity as Members of the City Council of York, Pennsylvania
660 F.2d 517 (Third Circuit, 1981)
Borne Chemical Co. v. Lincoln First Commercial Corp. (In Re Borne Chemical Co.)
9 B.R. 263 (D. New Jersey, 1981)
Charles Ashbrook and Master Chef, Inc. v. Harlan Hoffman
617 F.2d 474 (Seventh Circuit, 1980)
Delong Corporation v. Raymond International, Inc
622 F.2d 1135 (Third Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
396 U.S. 941, 24 L. Ed. 2d 244, 90 S. Ct. 378, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lockhart-v-hoenstine-scotus-1969.