Perez v. Ledesma

Supreme Court

Perez v. Ledesma

399 U.S. 924, 90 S. Ct. 2234

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJune 29, 1970

DocketNo. 837

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 399 U.S. 924 (Perez v. Ledesma) 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

Perez v. Ledesma, 399 U.S. 924, 90 S. Ct. 2234 (1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from D. C. E. D. La. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction in this case postponed to hearing of case on the merits. Case set to be argued with No. 4, Younger v. Harris, No. 6, Boyle v. Landry, No. 11, Samuels v. Mackell, No. 20, Fernandez v. Mackell, No. 565, Dyson v. Stein, and No. 1149, Byrne v. Karalexis. [Restored to calendar for reargument, supra.] In addition to questions presented in jurisdictional statement, parties requested to brief and argue the following questions:

(1) Was it an appropriate exercise of discretion for the three-judge court to grant the relief in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of August 14, 1969, in view of the pendency of the state prosecution charging violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:106?

(2) Was it an appropriate exercise of discretion for the three-judge court in paragraph 4 of said judgment to [925]*925declare the St. Bernard Parish Ordinance No. 21-60 unconstitutional ?

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

Appeal from D. C. E. D. La. Further consideration of question of jurisdiction in this case postponed to hearing of case on the merits. Case set to be argued with No. 4, Younger v. Harris, No. 6, Boyle v. Landry, No. 11, Samuels v. Mackell, No. 20, Fernandez v. Mackell, No. 565, Dyson v. Stein, and No. 1149, Byrne v. Karalexis. [Restored to calendar for reargument, supra.] In addition to questions presented in jurisdictional statement, parties requested to brief and argue the following questions:

(1) Was it an appropriate exercise of discretion for the three-judge court to grant the relief in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of August 14, 1969, in view of the pendency of the state prosecution charging violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes § 14:106?

(2) Was it an appropriate exercise of discretion for the three-judge court in paragraph 4 of said judgment to [925]*925declare the St. Bernard Parish Ordinance No. 21-60 unconstitutional ?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

399 U.S. 924, 90 S. Ct. 2234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-ledesma-scotus-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack