ROSS

v.

SCHNECKLOTH, SUPERINTENDENT, WASHINGTON STATE PENITENTIARY

Citator

Cited By

• Local 174 v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1962)
  …rs we have, without challenge, reviewed on their merits several cases decided by a Department of the Washington Supreme Court in which no petition for rehearing en banc had been filed. See, e. g., McGrath v. Rhay, 364 U. S. 279; Ross v. Schneckloth, 357 U. S. 575; United States v. Carroll Construction Co., 346 U. S. 802. Since this was a suit for violation of a collective bargaining contract within the purview of § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, the pre-emptive doctrine of cases such…
• Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1962)
  …ble to purchase transcripts, an “invidious discrimination” inconsistent with the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the laws of the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Eskridge v. Washington State Board, 357 U. S. 214; Ross v. Schneckloth, 357 U. S. 575; Burns v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 252; Douglas v. Green, 363 U. S. 192; McCrary v. Indiana, 364 U. S. 277; Smith v. Bennett, 365 U. S. 708, in which comparable state rules and practices, effectively limiting the poor person’s access to courts ostensibly ope…
• Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1963)
  …e for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion. In response, in Woods v. Rhay, 54 Wash. 2d 36, 338 P. 2d 332 (1959), a case which was remanded by this Court for reconsideration in light of Eskridge two weeks after that case was decided, 357 U. S. 575, the Supreme Court of Washington formulated a new set of rules to govern trial judges in passing upon indigents’ requests for free stenographic transcripts: “1. An indigent defendant in his motion for a free statement of facts must set forth: “a.…