Ray v. Ohio

364 U.S. 476, 5 L. Ed. 2d 222, 81 S. Ct. 244, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 83

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided December 5, 1960·No. No. 237·Published

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

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

Pincite

364 U.S. 476 (Ray v. Ohio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.