DAVIS v. MABRY, 380 U.S. 251 (1965)

U.S. Supreme Court

DAVIS v. MABRY, 380 U.S. 251 (1965)

380 U.S. 251

DAVIS, ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR OF TAXES, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL. v.
MABRY ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS.

No. 774.
Decided March 8, 1965.

 232 F. Supp. 930, affirmed.

Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, Mary K. Wall, Assistant Attorney General, James E. Barlow and Preston H. Dial, Jr., for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed. Carrington v. Rash, ante, p. 89.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would reverse the judgment of the District Court for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Carrington v. Rash, ante, at 97.

Page 380 U.S. 251, 252

 


U.S. Supreme Court

DAVIS v. MABRY, 380 U.S. 251 (1965)

380 U.S. 251

DAVIS, ASSESSOR-COLLECTOR OF TAXES, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, ET AL. v.
MABRY ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS.

No. 774.
Decided March 8, 1965.

 232 F. Supp. 930, affirmed.

Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, Mary K. Wall, Assistant Attorney General, James E. Barlow and Preston H. Dial, Jr., for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed. Carrington v. Rash, ante, p. 89.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would reverse the judgment of the District Court for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Carrington v. Rash, ante, at 97.

Page 380 U.S. 251, 252

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.