THOMAS v. VIRGINIA, 364 U.S. 443 (1960)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

THOMAS v. VIRGINIA, 364 U.S. 443 (1960)

364 U.S. 443

THOMAS v. VIRGINIA.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
No. 43.
Argued November 10, 1960.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Cornelius H. Doherty argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

R. D. McIlwaine III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General, and John W. Knowles, Assistant Attorney General.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Arlington County of the Commonwealth of Virginia is reversed and the case is remanded to that court. Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1, 18.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents for the same reason expressed by Mr. Justice Holmes in Union Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194, 211:

    "It seems to me that the result reached by the Court probably is a desirable one, but I hardly understand how it can be deduced from the Fourteenth Amendment . . . . "

    Page 364 U.S. 443, 444

 


U.S. Supreme Court

THOMAS v. VIRGINIA, 364 U.S. 443 (1960)

364 U.S. 443

THOMAS v. VIRGINIA.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
No. 43.
Argued November 10, 1960.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Cornelius H. Doherty argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

R. D. McIlwaine III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General, and John W. Knowles, Assistant Attorney General.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Arlington County of the Commonwealth of Virginia is reversed and the case is remanded to that court. Blodgett v. Silberman, 277 U.S. 1, 18.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents for the same reason expressed by Mr. Justice Holmes in Union Transit Co. v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194, 211:

    "It seems to me that the result reached by the Court probably is a desirable one, but I hardly understand how it can be deduced from the Fourteenth Amendment . . . . "

    Page 364 U.S. 443, 444

Oral Argument - November 10, 1960
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.