STAMLER ET AL.
v.
WILLIS ET AL.
STAMLER ET AL.
WILLIS ET AL.
393 U.S. 217
Supreme Court of the United States (1968)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeals are dismissed.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Harlan are of the opinion that further consideration of the question of jurisdiction should be postponed to the hearing of the cases on the merits and that the cases should be set for oral argument.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (U.S. 1969)…ourt refused to convene a three-judge court and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioners did not press this issue in their petition for writ of certiorari, apparently recognizing the validity of the Court of Appeals’ ruling. See Stamler v. Willis, 393 U. S. 217 (1968). Petitioners also requested that a writ of mandamus issue ordering that the named officials perform the same acts. The District Court entered its order April 7, 1967, and a notice of appeal was filed the same day. On April 11, 1967, Powell…
-
Stamler v. Hon. Edwin E. Willis, 415 F.2d 1365 (7th Cir. 1969)…N.D.Ill.1968).3 The dissenting opinion concluded that the Speech or Debate Clause was no bar to the maintenance of this declaratory or injunctive action (287 F.Supp. at pp. 739-744). The plaintiffs’ appeals to the Supreme Court were first dismissed (393 U.S. 217, 89 S.Ct. 395, 21 L.Ed.2d 356) and then remanded to the (single-judge) district court for the entry of a fresh decree (393 U.S. 407, 89 S.Ct. 677, 21 L.Ed.2d 627).4 Upon remand, the district judge entered another decree resembling the ear- [*1368]…