SOLOMON v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 382 U.S. 204 (1965)

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

 


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

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.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.