General
TANCIL et al. v. WOOLLS et al., JUDGES
379 U.S. 19·Supreme Court of the United States·1964
Mr. Justice Harlan is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted in both cases. · Mr. Justice Brennan is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted in No. 386.
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
TANCIL et al. v. WOOLLS et al., JUDGES.
No. 386.
Decided October 26, 1964.
Allison W. Brown, Jr., for appellants in No. 386 and for appellees in No. 412.
Robert F. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, R. D. Mcllwaine III, Assistant Attorney General, William J. Hassan and Ralph G. Louk for appellants in No. 412.
Together with No. 412, Virginia Board of Elections et al. v. Hamm et al., also on appeal from the same court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
. The motion to affirm in No. 412 is granted and the judgment in both cases is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted in both cases.
Mr. Justice Brennan is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted in No. 386.