RHODES E. CAVE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,

v.

STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. JAMES P. NEWELL

Citator

Cited By

• Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)
  …Protection Clause rather than on the Fifteenth Amendment, since there had been not solely a denial of the vote (if there had been that at all) but also a “fencing out” of a racial group. No holding to the contrary is to be found in Cave v. Newell, 246 U. S. 650, dismissing a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Missouri, 272 Mo. 653, 199 S. W. 1014; or in Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1. The ground of Mr. Justice Rutledge’s vote to affirm is further explained in Ms footnote 3, 328 U. S., at 566: “ ‘The po…
• Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1944)
  …denial of a right of property or of liberty secured by the due process clause. Taylor & Marshall v. Beckham, 178 U. S. 548. Only once since has this Court had occasion to consider the question and it then reaffirmed that conclusion, Cave v. Newell, 246 U. S. 650, as we reaffirm it now. Nor can we conclude that the action of the State Primary Canvassing Board, even though it be regarded as state action within the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment, was a denial of the equal protection of the laws. The…
• Johnson v. Hood, 430 F.2d 610 (5th Cir. 1970)
  …andidate for a state office achieved by state action “ * * * is not a denial of a right of property or liberty secured by the due process clause.” Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944). See Cave v. Missouri ex rel. Newell, 246 U.S. 650, 38 S.Ct. 334, 62 L.Ed. 921 (1918); Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621, 632, 24 S.Ct. 573, 575, 48 L.Ed. 817 (1904); Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548, 20 S.Ct. 890, 44 L.Ed. 1187 (1900); Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1875); Bynam v. Bu…

Authorities Cited

• Taylor and Marshall v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1900)
• Wilson v. North Carolina, 169 U.S. 586 (U.S. 1898)
• Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1917)