General
PERK, AUDITOR OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY v. OHIO ex rel. CORRIGAN, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY
396 U.S. 113·Supreme Court of the United States·1969
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
PERK, AUDITOR OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY v. OHIO ex rel. CORRIGAN, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF CUYAHOGA COUNTY
No. 590.
Decided December 8, 1969
Gerald A. Donahue and Donald M. Robiner for appellant.
John T. Corrigan, pro se, and John L. Dowling 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.