Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
PARROT et al. v. CITY OF TALLAHASSEE
381 U.S. 12914 L. Ed. 2d 263·Supreme Court of the United States·1965
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
PARROT et al. v. CITY OF TALLAHASSEE.
No. 958.
Decided May 3, 1965.
Jack Greenberg and Derrick A. Bell, Jr., for petitioners.
Roy T. Rhodes and Edw. J. Hill for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Florida Circuit Court is reversed. Robinson v. Florida, 378 U. S. 153.
Respondent asserts that the judgment below rests on an adequate independent state ground in that petitioners, through misunderstanding or oversight, failed to obtain certification of the Circuit Court record submitted with their otherwise timely petition for writ of certiorari in the Florida District Court of Appeal, First District. Petitioners tried to correct this non jurisdictional defect (see, e. g., Aris v. State, 162 So. 2d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.)) when notified of it, but their petition was dismissed nonetheless. We do not find this procedural ground adequate to bar review by this Court. See Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449; NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U. S. 288.