PENDERGRAFT
v.
MISSISSIPPI

U.S. | 1969-04-21
No. 834
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
394 U.S. 715 Supreme Court of the United States (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Mrs. Catherine T. Pendergraft v. Cook, 446 F.2d 1222 (5th Cir. 1971)
    …nd conviction, which was affirmed, Pendergraft v. State, 213 So. 2d 560 (Miss., 1968). A direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States resulted in dismissal for want of jurisdiction and the denial of certiorari, Pendergraft v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 715, 89 S.Ct. 1453, 22 L.Ed.2d 671 (1968), rehearing denied, 395 U.S. 941, 89 S.Ct. 1993, 23 L.Ed.2d 459. Mr. Justice Douglas recorded his opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. In both appeals from both convictions to the Supreme Court of…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw