Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION OF MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK, et al. v. UNITED STATES, 1966 — 383 U.S. 575 · caselaw · US
General
COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION OF MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK, et al. v. UNITED STATES
383 U.S. 575·Supreme Court of the United States·1966
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
COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION OF MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK, et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 1040.
Decided March 21, 1966.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Jean M. Coon, Assistant Attorney General, Ruth Kessler Toch, Acting Solicitor General, and William A. Stevens for appellants.
Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111; Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 382 U. S. 281.