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

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided May 20, 1968·No. 1238·Published·Cited by 44 cases

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.

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

391 U.S. 352 (Wilson v. City of Port Lavaca) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related