SOLOMON v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 382 U.S. 204 (1965)
Decided:
December 6, 1965
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
SOLOMON v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 382 U.S. 204 (1965) 382 U.S. 204SOLOMON v. SOUTH CAROLINA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 588.
Decided December 6, 1965.
245 S. C. 550, 141 S.E.2d 818, appeal dismissed.
Ellis Lyons for appellant.
Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, and E. N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed on the authority of Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398. And see McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 561, 577 (dissenting opinion).
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 588.
Decided December 6, 1965.
245 S. C. 550, 141 S.E.2d 818, appeal dismissed. Ellis Lyons for appellant. Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, and E. N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed on the authority of Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398. And see McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 561, 577 (dissenting opinion). MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 382 U.S. 204, 205
U.S. Supreme Court
SOLOMON v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 382 U.S. 204 (1965) 382 U.S. 204 SOLOMON v. SOUTH CAROLINA.APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.
No. 588.
Decided December 6, 1965.
245 S. C. 550, 141 S.E.2d 818, appeal dismissed. Ellis Lyons for appellant. Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General of South Carolina, and E. N. Brandon, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that the judgment should be reversed on the authority of Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398. And see McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 561, 577 (dissenting opinion). MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 382 U.S. 204, 205
Search This Case
