Wilson v. Kelley

Supreme Court

Wilson v. Kelley

393 U.S. 266

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 13, 1969

Docket561

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 393 U.S. 266 (Wilson v. Kelley) 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. Kelley, 393 U.S. 266 (1969).

Pincite

Opinion

393 U.S. 266 (1968)

WILSON ET AL.
v.
KELLEY, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL.

No. 561.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided December 16, 1968. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.

Charles Morgan, Jr., Reber F. Boult, Jr., Howard Moore, Jr., P. Walter Jones, Arthur Kinoy, Melvin L. Wulf, and Martin Garbus for appellants.

Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, Marion O. Gordon, Mathew Robins, and W. Wheeler Bryan, Assistant Attorneys General, and Don L. Hartman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are 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

393 U.S. 266 (1968)

WILSON ET AL.
v.
KELLEY, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL.

No. 561.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided December 16, 1968. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA.

Charles Morgan, Jr., Reber F. Boult, Jr., Howard Moore, Jr., P. Walter Jones, Arthur Kinoy, Melvin L. Wulf, and Martin Garbus for appellants.

Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, Marion O. Gordon, Mathew Robins, and W. Wheeler Bryan, Assistant Attorneys General, and Don L. Hartman, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 U.S. 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-kelley-scotus-1969.

Opinion

WILSON ET AL. v. KELLEY, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

WILSON ET AL.
v.
KELLEY, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, ET AL.