Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca

Supreme Court

Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca

391 U.S. 352, 88 S. Ct. 1502, 20 L. Ed. 2d 636, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1635

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMay 20, 1968

Docket1238

StatusPublished

Cited by44 cases

This text of 391 U.S. 352 (Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca) 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

Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca, 391 U.S. 352, 88 S. Ct. 1502, 20 L. Ed. 2d 636, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1635 (1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A three-judge federal court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281, determined that plaintiff’s claim was not “one which must be heard by a three-judge court.” 285 F. Supp. 85, 87. It also ruled that the relief sought by plaintiff was not warranted. The district judge in whose court the case was originally filed adopted the action of the court as his own. The resulting situation is similar, we think, to that which results when a single judge declines to convene a three-judge court and denies relief: an appeal lies to the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, and not to this Court. Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U. S. 427. It does not appear from the record that a protective appeal was lodged in the Court of Appeals, and the time to do so may have expired. Therefore, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court so that it may enter a fresh decree from which a timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals. Utility Comm’n v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 382 U. S. 281, 282.

It is so ordered.

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

Per Curiam.

A three-judge federal court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281, determined that plaintiff’s claim was not “one which must be heard by a three-judge court.” 285 F. Supp. 85, 87. It also ruled that the relief sought by plaintiff was not warranted. The district judge in whose court the case was originally filed adopted the action of the court as his own. The resulting situation is similar, we think, to that which results when a single judge declines to convene a three-judge court and denies relief: an appeal lies to the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, and not to this Court. Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U. S. 427. It does not appear from the record that a protective appeal was lodged in the Court of Appeals, and the time to do so may have expired. Therefore, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court so that it may enter a fresh decree from which a timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals. Utility Comm’n v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 382 U. S. 281, 282.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 U.S. 352, 88 S. Ct. 1502, 20 L. Ed. 2d 636, 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-city-of-port-lavaca-scotus-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack