Zucht v. King - 260 U.S. 174 (1922)


U.S. Supreme Court

Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922)

Zucht v. King

No. 84

Argued October 20, 1922

Decided November 13, 1922

260 U.S. 174

Syllabus

l. A city ordinance is a law of a state within the meaning of Jud.Code, § 237. P. 260 U. S. 176.

2. It is the duty of this Court to decline jurisdiction whenever it appears that the constitutional question upon which jurisdiction depends was not, at the time of granting the writ, a substantial question. P. 260 U. S. 176.

3. City ordinances making vaccination a condition to attendance at public or private schools and vesting broad discretion in health authorities to determine when and under what circumstances the requirement shall be enforced are consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, and, in view of prior decisions, a contrary contention presents no substantial constitutional question. P. 260 U. S. 176.

4. The question whether city officials have administered a valid ordinance in such a way as to deny the plaintiff the equal protection of the laws is not one of those upon which the judgment of a state court may be brought here by writ of error. P. 260 U. S. 177.

Writ of error to review 225 S.W. 267 dismissed.

Error to a judgment of the court below affirming a judgment of a trial court which dismissed the bill in a suit for injunction, mandamus, and damages.

Page 260 U. S. 175



Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.