GROCHOWIAK
v.
PENNSYLVANIA
GROCHOWIAK
PENNSYLVANIA
358 U.S. 47
Supreme Court of the United States (1958)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McGOWAN v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1961)…nremitted continuance of labour, without any stated times of recalling them to the worship of their Maker.” See also Ullner v. Ohio, 358 U. S. 131; Kidd v. Ohio, 358 U. S. 132; McGee v. North Carolina, 346 U. S. 802; cf. Grochowiak v. Pennsylvania, 358 U. S. 47; Gundaker Cent. Motors, Inc., v. Gassert, 354 U. S. 933; Towery v. North Carolina, 347 U. S. 925. As respects the First Amendment the court said: “It does not set up a church, make attendance upon religious worship compulsory, impose restrictions…1 / 4
-
Port Auth. Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Port OF NEW York Auth., 387 F.2d 259 (2d Cir. 1967)…ity — there 200 pages worth — in an issue characterized as unsubstantial in dismissing appeals only a few years before, Gundaker Central Motors, Inc. v. Gassert, 354 U.S. 933, 77 S.Ct. 1397, 1 L.Ed.2d 1533 (1957); Grochowiak v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 358 U.S. 47, 79 S.Ct. 40, 3 L.Ed.2d 44 (1958) ; Ullner v. State of Ohio, 358 U.S. 131, 79 S.Ct. 230, 3 L.Ed.2d 225 (1958) ; and Kidd v. State of Ohio, 358 U.S. 132, 79 S.Ct. 235, 3 L.Ed.2d 225 (1958). However, unless and until the Supreme Court should instruct…