ROBINSON v. JOHNSON, 394 U.S. 847 (1969)
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.
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
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.