From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McSurely v. Ratliff

U.S.
Mar 18, 1968
390 U.S. 412 (1968)

Opinion

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.


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.


Summaries of

McSurely v. Ratliff

U.S.
Mar 18, 1968
390 U.S. 412 (1968)
Case details for

McSurely v. Ratliff

Case Details

Full title:McSURELY ET AL. v . RATLIFF ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Mar 18, 1968

Citations

390 U.S. 412 (1968)
88 S. Ct. 1112

Citing Cases

McSurely v. McClellan

Shortly thereafter, a federal court declared the state statute unconstitutional, enjoined prosecution, and…

Barancik v. Investors Funding Corp. of N. Y

There is authority which suggests that a state court action is not `pending' when it is instituted subsequent…