Ray v. Ohio

364 U.S. 476, 5 L. Ed. 2d 222, 81 S. Ct. 244, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 83
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedDecember 5, 1960
DocketNo. 237
StatusPublished

This text of 364 U.S. 476 (Ray v. Ohio) 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
Ray v. Ohio, 364 U.S. 476, 5 L. Ed. 2d 222, 81 S. Ct. 244, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 83 (1960).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to supplement the jurisdictional statement is granted. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
364 U.S. 476, 5 L. Ed. 2d 222, 81 S. Ct. 244, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-ohio-scotus-1960.