McGILL v. RYALS, 385 U.S. 19 (1966)

U.S. Supreme Court

McGILL v. RYALS, 385 U.S. 19 (1966)

385 U.S. 19

McGILL ET AL. v. RYALS, SHERIFF, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF ALABAMA. No. 381, Misc.
Decided October 17, 1966.

 253 F. Supp. 374, appeal dismissed.

Vernon Z. Crawford, Morton Stavis, William M. Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy and Benjamin E. Smith for appellants.

Truman Hobbs for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the case was not appropriate for a three-judge court.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that a three-judge court was properly convened and would affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Page 385 U.S. 19, 20

 


U.S. Supreme Court

McGILL v. RYALS, 385 U.S. 19 (1966)

385 U.S. 19

McGILL ET AL. v. RYALS, SHERIFF, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
OF ALABAMA. No. 381, Misc.
Decided October 17, 1966.

 253 F. Supp. 374, appeal dismissed.

Vernon Z. Crawford, Morton Stavis, William M. Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy and Benjamin E. Smith for appellants.

Truman Hobbs for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the case was not appropriate for a three-judge court.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that a three-judge court was properly convened and would affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Page 385 U.S. 19, 20

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.