General

McSURELY et al. v. RATLIFF et al.

390 U.S. 412·Supreme Court of the United States·1968

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.

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

McSURELY et al. v. RATLIFF et al. No. 1113. Decided March 18, 1968. Dan Jack Combs, Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler and Morton Stavis for appellants. Solicitor General Griswold for the United States. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The stay heretofore granted, post, p. 914, is continued for 30 days in order to afford the appellants an opportunity to apply to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a stay. If such timely application is made, the stay entered by this Court shall remain in effect until the Court of Appeals acts on that application. Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.