BURRUSS ET AL.
v.
WILKERSON ET AL.
BURRUSS ET AL.
WILKERSON ET AL.
397 U.S. 44
Supreme Court of the United States (1970)
Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice White are 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)…ks 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. In Mclnnis, the plaintiffs asserted that “only a financing system, which apportions public…
-
The City OF NEW York v. Elliott L. Richardson, 473 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973)…406 U.S. 966 (1972) ; but of. McInnis v. Shapiro, 293 F.Supp. 327 (N.D.Ill.1968), aff’d sub nom. McInnis v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 322, 89 S.Ct. 1197, 22 L.Ed.2d 308 (1969) (without opinion) ; Burruss v. Wilkerson, 301 F. Supp. 1237 (W.D.Va.1968), aff’d 397 U.S. 44, 90 S.Ct. 812, 25 L.Ed.2d 37 (1970) (without opinion), it would be unwise to foreclose the plaintiffs from presenting their claim in its strongest posture at this time. We fully recognize that the cases cited in this footnote are not controlling, an…