TEXAS v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 155 (1966)

U.S. Supreme Court

TEXAS v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 155 (1966)

384 U.S. 155

TEXAS v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS. No. 1218.
Decided May 2, 1966.

252 F. Supp. 234, affirmed.

Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, and Mary K. Wall, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, supra.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, joined by MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, supra.

Page 384 U.S. 155, 156




U.S. Supreme Court

TEXAS v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 155 (1966)

384 U.S. 155

TEXAS v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS. No. 1218.
Decided May 2, 1966.

252 F. Supp. 234, affirmed.

Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, and Mary K. Wall, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, supra.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, joined by MR. JUSTICE STEWART, dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, supra.

Page 384 U.S. 155, 156

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.