ROBINSON v. JOHNSON, 394 U.S. 847 (1969)
Decided:
May 5, 1969
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
ROBINSON v. JOHNSON, 394 U.S. 847 (1969) 394 U.S. 847ROBINSON ET AL. v. JOHNSON ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 67.
Decided May 5, 1969.
Affirmed.
William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, Thomas E. Brannigan, Assistant Attorney General, John J. Stamos, and Daniel P. Coman for appellants.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE in Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 644.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 655.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 67.
Decided May 5, 1969.
Affirmed. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, Thomas E. Brannigan, Assistant Attorney General, John J. Stamos, and Daniel P. Coman for appellants. PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE in Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 644. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 655. Page 394 U.S. 847, 848
U.S. Supreme Court
ROBINSON v. JOHNSON, 394 U.S. 847 (1969) 394 U.S. 847 ROBINSON ET AL. v. JOHNSON ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 67.
Decided May 5, 1969.
Affirmed. William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, Thomas E. Brannigan, Assistant Attorney General, John J. Stamos, and Daniel P. Coman for appellants. PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE BLACK dissents for the reasons given in the dissenting opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE in Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 644. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Shapiro v. Thompson, ante, p. 655. Page 394 U.S. 847, 848
Search This Case
