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.
Ringgold et al. v. Borough of Collingswood, 1976 — 426 U.S. 901 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Ringgold et al. v. Borough of Collingswood
426 U.S. 901·Supreme Court of the United States·1976
Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun would vacate judgment and remand case for further consideration in light of Hynes v. Mayor of Borough of Oradell, 425 U. S. 610 (1976). Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
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
June 1, 1976
No. 74-1335.
Ringgold et al. v. Borough of Collingswood.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from Sup. Ct. N. J. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Blackmun would vacate judgment and remand case for further consideration in light of Hynes v. Mayor of Borough of Oradell, 425 U. S. 610 (1976). Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.