BIRCHAM
v.
KENTUCKY

U.S. | 1951-10-08
No. 243
342 U.S. 805 Supreme Court of the United States (1951) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari as required by 28 U. S. C. § 2103, certiorari is denied.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Dixon v. Duffy, 344 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1952)
    …t court, summarily, but with two dissents, denied the application. To review this decision, petitioner applied to this Court for certiorari. The Court granted the petition, 341 U. S. 938, and thereafter appointed counsel to represent the petitioner. 342 U. S. 805. The Attorney General of California appeared for respondent. At the bar of this Court, he argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court of California rested on an adequate nonfederal ground. Admitting that habeas corpus is ordinarily an available m…
  • Ex parte Cogdell, 342 U.S. 163 (U.S. 1951)
    …s directing that a court of three judges be convened to hear ai\d determine their constitutional claims. ' As substantial jurisdictional questions were raised, we granted the motion and issued a rule to show cause why mandamus should not be granted. 342 U. S. 805. In addition to this mandamus action, appeals were taken by petitioners to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and are now pending in that court. One of the jurisdictional questions raised by this caséis whether a court of thr…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw