SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, 376 U.S. 339 (1964)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, 376 U.S. 339 (1964)

376 U.S. 339

SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ALABAMA.
No. 168.
Argued February 27, 1964.
Decided March 9, 1964.

42 Ala. App. 1, 149 So. 2d 921, reversed.

Jack Greenberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were James M. Nabrit III, Peter A. Hall and Orzell Billingsley, Jr.

J. M. Breckenridge argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Alabama is reversed. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196; Williams v. Georgia, 349 U.S. 375.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 376 U.S. 339, 340

 


U.S. Supreme Court

SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, 376 U.S. 339 (1964)

376 U.S. 339

SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ALABAMA.
No. 168.
Argued February 27, 1964.
Decided March 9, 1964.

42 Ala. App. 1, 149 So. 2d 921, reversed.

Jack Greenberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were James M. Nabrit III, Peter A. Hall and Orzell Billingsley, Jr.

J. M. Breckenridge argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Alabama is reversed. Cole v. Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196; Williams v. Georgia, 349 U.S. 375.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 376 U.S. 339, 340

Oral Argument - February 27, 1964
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.