DAHL v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, 393 U.S. 408 (1969)

U.S. Supreme Court

DAHL v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, 393 U.S. 408 (1969)

393 U.S. 408

DAHL ET AL. v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 596.
Decided January 20, 1969.

Vacated and remanded.

Alfred J. Schweppe for appellants.

Bradley T. Jones for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded in order that the District Court may enter a fresh decree from which appellants may, if they wish, perfect a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals. Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, believing that jurisdiction lies in this Court, would affirm the judgment below.

Page 393 U.S. 408, 409




U.S. Supreme Court

DAHL v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, 393 U.S. 408 (1969)

393 U.S. 408

DAHL ET AL. v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 596.
Decided January 20, 1969.

Vacated and remanded.

Alfred J. Schweppe for appellants.

Bradley T. Jones for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded in order that the District Court may enter a fresh decree from which appellants may, if they wish, perfect a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals. Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, believing that jurisdiction lies in this Court, would affirm the judgment below.

Page 393 U.S. 408, 409

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.