SCHACKMAN v. ARNEBERGH, 387 U.S. 427 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court
SCHACKMAN v. ARNEBERGH, 387 U.S. 427 (1967)
387 U.S. 427SCHACKMAN ET AL. v. ARNEBERGH, CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA.
No. 1186.Decided May 29, 1967.
258 F. Supp. 983, 996, appeal dismissed.
Burton Marks for appellants.
Roger Arnebergh, pro se, Bourke Jones and Robert B. Burns for appellees Arnebergh et al.; Harold W. Kennedy, George Wakefield and Martin E. Weekes for appellees Younger et al.; and Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, pro se, and A. Barry Cappello, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee Lynch.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review by this Court of the refusal by the District Court to convene a three-judge District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2281-2284. We have held that such review is available in the Court of Appeals, Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, and not in this Court. Buchanan v. Rhodes, 385 U.S. 3.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
U.S. Supreme Court
SCHACKMAN v. ARNEBERGH, 387 U.S. 427 (1967)
387 U.S. 427SCHACKMAN ET AL. v. ARNEBERGH, CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA.
No. 1186.Decided May 29, 1967.
258 F. Supp. 983, 996, appeal dismissed.
Burton Marks for appellants.
Roger Arnebergh, pro se, Bourke Jones and Robert B. Burns for appellees Arnebergh et al.; Harold W. Kennedy, George Wakefield and Martin E. Weekes for appellees Younger et al.; and Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, pro se, and A. Barry Cappello, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee Lynch.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review by this Court of the refusal by the District Court to convene a three-judge District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2281-2284. We have held that such review is available in the Court of Appeals, Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, and not in this Court. Buchanan v. Rhodes, 385 U.S. 3.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Page 387 U.S. 427, 428
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.
