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.
BAILEY et al. v. PATTERSON et al., 1961 — 368 U.S. 346 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
BAILEY et al. v. PATTERSON et al.
368 U.S. 3467 L. Ed. 2d 332·Supreme Court of the United States·1961
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Frankfurter concur in the denial of a stay solely on the ground that the three movants are not themselves being prosecuted or threatened with prosecutions in Mississippi and they therefore reach no other questions.
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
BAILEY et al. v. PATTERSON et al.
No.-.
Decided December 18, 1961.
Constance Baker Motley, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and R. Jess Brown for movants.
Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, Charles Clark and Peter M. Stockett, Special Assistant Attorneys General, and Dugas Shands and Edward L. Cates, Assistant Attorneys General, for Patterson et al., and Thomas H. Watkins for the City of Jackson et al., respondents.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Harold H. Greene and Howard A. Glickstein filed a memorandum for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of the motion.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
This is a motion for an injunction to stay the prosecution of a number of criminal cases in the courts of Mississippi pending an appeal to this Court from the judgment of a three-judge Federal District Court. A federal injunction to stay state criminal proceedings is an extraordinary remedy. Cf. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123. In addition to the considerations normally attending an application for such relief, a serious question of standing is presented on this motion, in that it appears that the movants themselves are not being prosecuted in the Mississippi courts. On the record before us the motion for a stay injunction pending appeal is denied.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Frankfurter concur in the denial of a stay solely on the ground that the three movants are not themselves being prosecuted or threatened with prosecutions in Mississippi and they therefore reach no other questions.