General
TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND
368 U.S. 18·Supreme Court of the United States·1961
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND.
No. 315.
Decided October 23, 1961.
Martin A. Martin, Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Charles L. Black, Jr. for appellant.
J. E. Drinard for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.