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.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. GALLION, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, et al., 1961 — 368 U.S. 16 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. GALLION, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, et al.
368 U.S. 16·Supreme Court of the United States·1961
Mr. Justice Stewart 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
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. GALLION, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, et al.
No. 303.
Decided October 23, 1961.
Robert L. Carter, Fred D. Cray, Arthur D. Shores, Orzell Billingsley, Jr. and Peter Hall for petitioner.
MacDonald Qallion, Attorney General of Alabama, and Willard W. Livingston, Leslie Hall and Cordon Madison, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to direct the District Court to proceed with the trial of the issues in this action unless within a reasonable time, no later than January 2, 1962, the State of Alabama shall have accorded to petitioner an opportunity to be heard on its motion to dissolve the state restraining order of June 1, 1956, and upon the merits of the action in which such order was issued. Pending the final determination of all proceedings in the state action, the District Court is authorized to retain jurisdiction over the federal action and to take such steps as may appear necessary and appropriate to assure a prompt disposition of all issues involved in, or connected with, the state action. Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 331-334.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.