BANKS
v.
CALIFORNIA

U.S. | 1969-06-16
No. 670
395 U.S. 708 Supreme Court of the United States (1969) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 23 L. Ed. 2d 653 · 89 S. Ct. 1901 · 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1264 · SCDB 1968-134
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

Petitioner did not ask the Supreme Court of California to review the judgment entered by the Court of Appeal in this case. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeal is not a “[fjinal judgment . . . rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had . . . 28 U. S. C. § 1257, and we lack jurisdiction to review it. The writ of certiorari is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Pugh v. Smith, 465 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2006)
    …state’s highest court before filing a petition for certiorari. See, e.g., Stratton v. Stratton, 239 U.S. 55, 56, 36 S.Ct. 26, 27, 60 L.Ed. 142 (1915); Gotthilf v. Sills, 375 U.S. 79, 80, 84 S.Ct. 187, 188, 11 L.Ed.2d 159 (1963); Banks v. California, 395 U.S. 708, 708, 89 S.Ct. 1901, 1901, 23 L.Ed.2d 653 (1969); Sandquist v. California, 419 U.S. 1066, 1066, 95 S.Ct. 651, 651, 42 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). Whether Pugh was entitled to seek direct review in the Supreme Court of the United States determines the time…
    1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw