BLANKENSHIP v. HOLDING, 387 U.S. 95 (1967)

U.S. Supreme Court

BLANKENSHIP v. HOLDING, 387 U.S. 95 (1967)

387 U.S. 95

BLANKENSHIP ET AL. v. HOLDING, DBA GRAND NEWS.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
OKLAHOMA. No. 1089.
Decided May 15, 1967.

259 F. Supp. 694, affirmed.

Charles Nesbitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Jeff Hartmann, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

Samuel W. Block, Thomas P. Sullivan and Paul C. Duncan for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Probable jurisdiction noted. The judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma entered November 4, 1966, is affirmed insofar as it adjudged provisions of 1040.1 to 1040.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes to be unconstitutional.

Page 387 U.S. 95, 96

 


U.S. Supreme Court

BLANKENSHIP v. HOLDING, 387 U.S. 95 (1967)

387 U.S. 95

BLANKENSHIP ET AL. v. HOLDING, DBA GRAND NEWS.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
OKLAHOMA. No. 1089.
Decided May 15, 1967.

259 F. Supp. 694, affirmed.

Charles Nesbitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Jeff Hartmann, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

Samuel W. Block, Thomas P. Sullivan and Paul C. Duncan for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Probable jurisdiction noted. The judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma entered November 4, 1966, is affirmed insofar as it adjudged provisions of 1040.1 to 1040.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes to be unconstitutional.

Page 387 U.S. 95, 96

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.