UNITED STATES
v.
LOUISIANA ET AL.

U.S. | 1958-04-14
No. 11
356 U.S. 928 Supreme Court of the United States (1958) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court issued a procedural order in a dispute between the United States and five Southern states (Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida), allocating thirteen hours total for oral argument and setting deadlines for the filing of briefs. The Court's decision established the schedule and procedural parameters for the case without ruling on its merits.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court

In this case a total of thirteen hours is allowed for oral argument. The United States is allotted a total of six hours and a half and the defendant States a total of six hours and a half. The brief of the United States shall be filed on or before May 15; the briefs of the defendant States on or before August 15 and any rebuttal brief by the United States on or before September 15. Other briefs may only be filed by leave of Court. The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these matters. Solicitor General Rankin for the United States. Jack P.

F. Gre-million, Attorney General, for the State of Louisiana, Will Wilson, Attorney General, for the State of Texas, Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General, for the State of Mississippi, John Patterson, Attorney General, for the State of Alabama, and Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General, and Fred M. Burns, Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Florida, defendants. For previous orders see 350 U. S. 990; 351 U. S. 946, 978; 352 U. S. 812, 885, 921, 979; 353 U. S. 903, 928, 980; 354 U. S. 515; 355 U. S. 859, 876, 945.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Lawson, 507 F.2d 433 (7th Cir. 1974)
    …through the motions of complying with the requirement of “stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.” Rule 30. (Emphasis added.) In Tomley v. United States, 250 F. 2d 549, 551 (5th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 928, 78 S.Ct. 116, 2 L.Ed.2d 759 (1958), the court dealt with a similarly cursory obeisance to the Rule as follows: “In his objection, counsel for defendant merely restated his requests, but did not even attempt to give the grounds for his complaint th…
  • Odell Clark v. United States, 293 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1961)
    …ion for acquittal, the circumstances here are such as fully warrant a review of the evidence under the plain error rule. See Meeks v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 259 F. 2d 328; Tomley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 250 F. 2d 549, certiorari denied 356 U.S. 928, 78 S.Ct. 716, 2 L.Ed.2d 759; Demos v. United States, 5 Cir., 1953, 205 F. 2d 596, certiorari denied 346 U.S. 873, 74 S.Ct. 123, 98 L.Ed. 382; Thomas v. United States, 5 Cir., 1951, 189 F. 2d 430; Ansley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1943, 135 F. 2d 207…
  • Friedman v. United States, 381 F.2d 155 (8th Cir. 1967)
    …Appellant’s objection or exception failed utterly to comply with that rule. There was complete failure to point out why appellant believed the instruction “not proper law”. In Tomley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957, 250 F. 2d 549, certiorari denied, 356 U.S. 928, 78 S.Ct. 716, 2 L.Ed. 2d 759, the court, when faced with a similar problem, stated at pages 550-551 of 250 F. 2d: “ * * * Under that rule, [Rule 30, supra] in order to put the trial court in error, it is necessary that the defendant precisely stat…

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw