McSURELY v. RATLIFF, 390 U.S. 412 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

McSURELY v. RATLIFF, 390 U.S. 412 (1968)

390 U.S. 412

McSURELY ET AL. v. RATLIFF ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY. No. 1113.
Decided March 18, 1968.

Appeal dismissed. Stay heretofore granted, post, p. 914, continued for 30 days.

Dan Jack Combs, Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler and Morton Stavis for appellants.

Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The stay heretofore granted, post, p. 914, is continued for 30 days in order to afford the appellants an opportunity to apply to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a stay. If such timely application is made, the stay entered by this Court shall remain in effect until the Court of Appeals acts on that application.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.

Page 390 U.S. 412, 413




U.S. Supreme Court

McSURELY v. RATLIFF, 390 U.S. 412 (1968)

390 U.S. 412

McSURELY ET AL. v. RATLIFF ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY. No. 1113.
Decided March 18, 1968.

Appeal dismissed. Stay heretofore granted, post, p. 914, continued for 30 days.

Dan Jack Combs, Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler and Morton Stavis for appellants.

Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The stay heretofore granted, post, p. 914, is continued for 30 days in order to afford the appellants an opportunity to apply to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a stay. If such timely application is made, the stay entered by this Court shall remain in effect until the Court of Appeals acts on that application.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.

Page 390 U.S. 412, 413

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.