MCINNIS ET AL.
v.
OGILVIE, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, ET AL.
MCINNIS ET AL.
OGILVIE, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, ET AL.
394 U.S. 322
Supreme Court of the United States (1969)
Caution
Cited by 18 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motions of Urban Coalition et al., American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations et al., John E. Coons et al., and San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance Foundation et al., for leave to file briefs as amici curiae are granted.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1973)…ious cases this Court has summarily affirmed district court dismissals of constitutional attacks upon other state educational financing schemes. See McInnis v. Shapiro, 293 F. Supp. 327 (ND Ill. 1968), aff’d per curiam., sub nom. McInnis v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 322 (1969); Burruss v. Wilkerson, 310 F. Supp. 572 (WD Va. 1969), aff’d per curiam, 397 U. S. 44 (1970). But those decisions cannot be considered dispositive of this action, for the thrust of those suits differed materially from that of the present case…
-
Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (U.S. 1982)…oes not require States to expend equal financial resources on the education of each child. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1 (1973); McInnis v. Shapiro, 293 F. Supp. 327 (ND Ill. 1968), aff’d sub nom. McInnis v. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 322 (1969). In explaining the need for federal legislation, the House Report noted that “no congressional legislation has required a precise guarantee for handicapped children, i. e. a basic floor of opportunity that would bring into compliance all sch…
-
Hargrave v. Shellie McKINNEY, 413 F.2d 320 (5th Cir. 1969)…6 S.Ct. 258, 15 L.Ed.2d 194. We readily observe that prior decisions of the federal judiciary do not foreclose consideration of plaintiffs’ equal protection argument. See McInnis v. Shapiro, 293 F.Supp. 327, (N.D.Ill.1968), McInnis v. Ogilvie, aff’d 394 U.S. 322, 89 S.Ct. 1197, 22 L.Ed.2d 308; Burruss v. Wilkerson, 301 F.Supp. 1237 (W.D.Va.1968) (single judge convening three-judge court). Thus, the narrow question for our determination is whether plaintiffs’ claim is “obviously without merit.” 290 U.S. at 3…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence