Martin v. Walton

Supreme Court

Martin v. Walton

368 U.S. 25, 82 S. Ct. 1, 7 L. Ed. 2d 5, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 194

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedDecember 11, 1961

Docket30

StatusPublished

Cited by88 cases

This text of 368 U.S. 25 (Martin v. Walton) 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

Martin v. Walton, 368 U.S. 25, 82 S. Ct. 1, 7 L. Ed. 2d 5, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 194 (1961).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Upon plenary consideration, we are satisfied that, both on their face and as applied to appellant, Kan. Gen. Stat., 1949, § 7-104, and amended Kan. Sup. Ct. Rules 41 and 54 promulgated by the Supreme Court of Kansas, acting within its competence under state law, are not beyond the allowable range of [26]*26state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U. S. 425; Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232, 239; Hitchcock v. Collenberg, 353 U. S. 919; Kovrak v. Ginsburg, 358 U. S. 52. We cannot disregard the reasons given by the Kansas Supreme Court for the Rules in question. 187 Kan. 473, 357 P. 2d 782. Nor does the fact that the Rules may result in “incidental individual inequality” make them offensive to the Fourteenth Amendment. Phelps v. Board of Education, 300 U. S. 319, 324.

The Chief Justice concurs in the result. Mb. Justice Whittaker took no part in the disposition of this case.

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

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Upon plenary consideration, we are satisfied that, both on their face and as applied to appellant, Kan. Gen. Stat., 1949, § 7-104, and amended Kan. Sup. Ct. Rules 41 and 54 promulgated by the Supreme Court of Kansas, acting within its competence under state law, are not beyond the allowable range of [26]*26state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U. S. 425; Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232, 239; Hitchcock v. Collenberg, 353 U. S. 919; Kovrak v. Ginsburg, 358 U. S. 52. We cannot disregard the reasons given by the Kansas Supreme Court for the Rules in question. 187 Kan. 473, 357 P. 2d 782. Nor does the fact that the Rules may result in “incidental individual inequality” make them offensive to the Fourteenth Amendment. Phelps v. Board of Education, 300 U. S. 319, 324.

The Chief Justice concurs in the result. Mb. Justice Whittaker took no part in the disposition of this case.

Steven C. Morrison, Esquire v. Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina Susan Freya Olive Thomas W. Steed, Jr. Karl Adkins Edward J. Harper, II Gail C. Arneke Robin L. Tatum Catherine E. Thompson William K. Davis Roy W. Davis, Jr. Emil F. Kratt Shirley Fulton Fred P. Parker, Iii, and Their Successors, in Their Capacities as Director And/or Members of the Board of Law Examiners, Association of Corporate Counsel, Amicus Supporting Steven C. Morrison, Esquire v. Board of Law Examiners of the State of North Carolina Susan Freya Olive Thomas W. Steed, Jr. Karl Adkins Edward J. Harper, II Gail C. Arneke Robin L. Tatum Catherine E. Thompson William K. Davis Roy W. Davis, Jr. Emil F. Kratt Shirley Fulton Fred P. Parker, Iii, and Their Successors, in Their Capacities as Director And/or Members of the Board of Law Examiners, Association of Corporate Counsel, Amicus Supporting

453 F.3d 190 (Fourth Circuit, 2006)

Allied Colloids, Inc v. Jadair, Incorporated

Fourth Circuit, 1998

Goldfarb v. Supreme Court of Virginia

766 F.2d 859 (Fourth Circuit, 1985)

State v. Moore

701 P.2d 684 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1985)

Burriss v. Northern Assurance Co. of America

691 P.2d 10 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1984)

Matter of Frazier

594 F. Supp. 1173 (E.D. Louisiana, 1984)

Lawrence A. Salibra, II v. Supreme Court of Ohio

730 F.2d 1059 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)

J. Kenneth Lowrie v. Joseph H. Goldenhersh

716 F.2d 401 (Seventh Circuit, 1983)

State Ex Rel. Quelch v. Daugherty

306 S.E.2d 233 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1983)

Jesse James Ford, III v. Thomas Israel

701 F.2d 689 (Seventh Circuit, 1983)

Lane v. W. Va. State Board of Law Examiners

295 S.E.2d 670 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1982)

Verner v. State of Colo.

533 F. Supp. 1109 (D. Colorado, 1982)

Ford v. Israel

534 F. Supp. 1128 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1982)

Heisse v. State of Vt.

519 F. Supp. 36 (D. Vermont, 1981)

Gorup v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System

600 P.2d 1161 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1979)

In re Pitchford

581 S.W.2d 321 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1979)

Charles A. Deason, Jr. v. United States District Court for the District of New Mexico

574 F.2d 504 (Tenth Circuit, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

368 U.S. 25, 82 S. Ct. 1, 7 L. Ed. 2d 5, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-walton-scotus-1961.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack