BUCHANAN ET AL.
v.
RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL.
BUCHANAN ET AL.
RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL.
385 U.S. 3
Supreme Court of the United States (1966)
Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
League OF United Latin Am. Citizens Council NO. 4434 v. Clements, 914 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1990)…9) (involving Board of Commissioners of Alabama State Bar) Irish v. Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota, 287 F.Supp. 794 (D.C.Minn.), aff’d, 399 F. 2d 119 (8th Cir.1968) Buchanan v. Rhodes, 249 F.Supp. 860 (N.D.Ohio 1966), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 3, 87 S.Ct. 33, 17 L.Ed.2d 3 (1966), and vacated, 400 F. 2d 882 (6th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 839, 89 S.Ct. 118, 21 L.Ed.2d 110 (1968) N.Y. State Assn. of Trial Lawyers v. Rockefeller, 267 F.Supp. 148 (S.D.N.Y.1967) Kail v. Rockefeller, 275…
-
Wymbs v. Republican State Executive Comm. OF Fla., 719 F.2d 1072 (11th Cir. 1983)…one vote does not, for example, apply to the election of state judges, Wells v. Edwards, 347 F.Supp. 453 (M.D.La.1972), aff’d mem. 409 U.S. 1095, 93 S.Ct. 904, 34 L.Ed.2d 679 (1973); Buchanan v. Rhodes, 249 F.Supp. 860 (N.D.Ohio), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 3, 87 S.Ct. 33, 17 L.Ed.2d 3 (1966), or to “special purpose assemblies,” Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Dist., 410 U.S. 719, 727, 93 S.Ct. 1224, 35 L.Ed.2d 659 (1973). The standard also does not apparently apply to state constituti…
-
The Long Island Rail Rd. Co. v. The United States, 568 F.2d 254 (2d Cir. 1977)…l tariff filing is not unlawful per se, see United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad, 294 U.S. 499, 507, 55 S.Ct. 462, 79 L.Ed. 1023 (1953); Baltimore and Ohio Railroad v. United States, 249 F.Supp. 712 (W.D.Pa. 1965), aff’d, 385 U.S. 3, 87 S.Ct. 32, 17 L.Ed.2d 2 (1966), such a filing will often be met by an ICC finding that the separate rate is “unjust and unreasonable” under § 1(5) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1(5), or “unduly preferential” under § 3(1), 49 U.S.C.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence