Nathaniel Buchanan v. The Honorable James A. Rhodes

Sixth Circuit

Nathaniel Buchanan v. The Honorable James A. Rhodes

400 F.2d 882

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided October 14, 1968·No. 17557_1·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case appellants attack as federally unconstitutional the provisions of Ohio’s constitution and statutes which provide for the election and assignment of Ohio’s trial judges. The District Judge before whom this complaint was filed dismissed the complaint without convening a three-judge court. The factual background and legal issues are fully stated in his opinion. Buchanan v. Rhodes, 249 F.Supp. 860 (N.D.Ohio 1966).

On consideration of the procedural aspects of this appeal only, the judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for the convening of a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281 (1964).

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case appellants attack as federally unconstitutional the provisions of Ohio’s constitution and statutes which provide for the election and assignment of Ohio’s trial judges. The District Judge before whom this complaint was filed dismissed the complaint without convening a three-judge court. The factual background and legal issues are fully stated in his opinion. Buchanan v. Rhodes, 249 F.Supp. 860 (N.D.Ohio 1966).

On consideration of the procedural aspects of this appeal only, the judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for the convening of a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2281 (1964).

Nathaniel Buchanan v. The Honorable James A. Rhodes, 400 F.2d 882 (6th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

400 F.2d 882 (Nathaniel Buchanan v. The Honorable James A. Rhodes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related