JAMES, STATE TREASURER OF TEXAS, ET AL.

v.

GILMORE ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. NO. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2007)
  …atory appellate jurisdiction,7 the Boston plaintiffs prosecuted an appeal in this Court. Our ruling on the merits simply stated that the appeal was “dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” School Comm. of Boston v. Board of Education, 389 U. S. 572 (1968) (per curiam). That decision not only expressed our appraisal of the merits of the appeal, but it constitutes a precedent that the Court overrules today. The subsequent statements by the unanimous Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd.…

  ← 1 / 4 →
• Lasa PER L'Industria del Marmo Societa PER Azioni OF Lasa v. Alexander, 414 F.2d 143 (6th Cir. 1969)
  …not enough then, in order to have the right to file cross-claims, that they arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, but there also must be a question of law or fact common to all defendants. In Gilmore v. James, 274 F.Supp. 75, 89, affirmed 389 U.S. 572, 88 S.Ct. 695, 19 L.Ed.2d 783 (1968), the court indicated that both requirements must be met — the common question and the requirements that the case arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences. As the cou…
• Holt Civic Club v. City OF Tuscaloosa, 525 F.2d 653 (5th Cir. 1975)
  …need not be convened where the action seeks to enjoin a local officer . unless he is functioning pursuant to a statewide policy and performing a state function”); Gilmore v. James, N.D.Tex., 1967, 274 F.Supp. .75 (three- [*656] judge court), aff’d, 389 U.S. 572, 88 S.Ct. 695, 19 L.Ed.2d 783 (1968). See also Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. New Left Education Project, 404 U.S. 541, 544 n.2, 92 S.Ct. 652, 654 n.2, 30 L.Ed.2d 697 (1972) (dictum). Finally, in light of Supreme Court stan…