WILSON
v.
CITY OF PORT LAVACA ET AL.
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.
A three-judge federal court determined that plaintiff's claim did not require three-judge court review and denied relief, but the Supreme Court held that when a three-judge court wrongly declines jurisdiction, an appeal must go to the Court of Appeals rather than directly to the Supreme Court. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded to allow the district court to enter a fresh decree from which a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals could be taken.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
A three-judge federal court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281, determined that plaintiff’s claim was not “one which must be heard by a three-judge court.” 285 F. Supp. 85, 87. It also ruled that the relief sought by plaintiff was not warranted. The district judge in whose court the case was originally filed adopted the action of the court as his own. The resulting situation is similar, we think, to that which results when a single judge declines to convene a three-judge court and denies relief: an appeal lies to the appropriate United States Court of Appeals, and not to this Court. Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U. S. 427. It does not appear from the record that a protective appeal was lodged in the Court of Appeals, and the time to do so may have expired. Therefore, we vacate the judgment below and remand the case to the District Court so that it may enter a fresh decree from which a timely appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals. Utility Comm’n v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 382 U. S. 281, 282.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Gonzalez v. Automatic Emps. Credit Union, 419 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1974)…mus or through a certified interlocutory appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (b). These also are the routes of review of a three-judge court’s decision to dissolve itself, Mengelkoch v. Industrial Welfare Comm’n, 393 U. S. 83, and Wilson v. Port Lavaca, 391 U. S. 352. Where a single judge has disposed of the complaint through a final order, appeal lies to the court of appeals under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Wilson v. Port Lavaca, supra. It appears that Gonzalez and Mercantile settled the former’s damage claim while…
-
Mengelkoch v. Indus. Welf. Comm'n, 393 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1968)…es Court of Appeals. 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Moreover, we have held that when, as here, a [*84] three-judge court dissolves itself for want of jurisdiction, an appeal lies to the appropriate Court of Appeals and not to this Court. Wilson v. Port Lavaca, 391 U. S. 352.* Although the appellants have lodged in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a protective appeal from the decision of the single judge, it does not appear from the record that such, an appeal has been filed with respect to the three-judge or…
-
Hargrave v. Shellie McKINNEY, 413 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1969)…an ten (10) mills of tax on the non-exempt assessed valuation of the county, exclusive of voted district building and bus, required debt service, and the millage required for junior college minimum effort.” . Wilson v. City of Port of Lavaca, 1968, 391 U.S. 352, 88 S.Ct. 1502, 20 L.Ed.2d 636; Schackman v. Arnebergh, 1967, 387 U.S. 427, 87 S.Ct. 1622, 18 L.Ed.2d 865; Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 1967, 385 U.S. 589, 593, n. 2, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629. . Plaintiffs’ complaint otherwise “comes within t…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U.S. 427 (U.S. 1967)
- Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n v. Pa. R.R. Co., 382 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1965)