VORCHHEIMER v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, 430 U.S. 703 (1977)
Argued:
February 22, 1977
Decided:
April 19, 1977
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
VORCHHEIMER v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, 430 U.S. 703 (1977) 430 U.S. 703VORCHHEIMER v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
PHILADELPHIA ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT
No. 76-37.
Argued February 22, 1977
Decided April 19, 1977
532 F.2d 880, affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Sharon K. Wallis argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Melvin L. Wulf.
Alan H. Gilbert argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Edward B. Soken.*
[Footnote *] Solicitor General Bork filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Opinions
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 76-37.
Argued February 22, 1977
Decided April 19, 1977
532 F.2d 880, affirmed by an equally divided Court. Sharon K. Wallis argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Melvin L. Wulf. Alan H. Gilbert argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Edward B. Soken.* [Footnote *] Solicitor General Bork filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae. PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Page 430 U.S. 703, 704
U.S. Supreme Court
VORCHHEIMER v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA, 430 U.S. 703 (1977) 430 U.S. 703 VORCHHEIMER v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA ET AL.CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 76-37.
Argued February 22, 1977
Decided April 19, 1977
532 F.2d 880, affirmed by an equally divided Court. Sharon K. Wallis argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Melvin L. Wulf. Alan H. Gilbert argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Edward B. Soken.* [Footnote *] Solicitor General Bork filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae. PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Page 430 U.S. 703, 704
Search This Case
