Skip to content


Ratley Vs. Crouse - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number382 U.S. 42
AppellantRatley
RespondentCrouse
Excerpt:
ratley v. crouse - 382 u.s. 42 (1965) u.s. supreme court ratley v. crouse, 382 u.s. 42 (1965) 382 u.s. 42 ratley v. crouse, warden. appeal from the supreme court of kansas. no. 551, misc. decided october 25, 1965. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. per curiam. the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. page 382 u.s. 42, 43 burnette v. davis, 382 u.s. 42 (1965) 382 u.s. 42 (1965) "> u.s. supreme court burnette v. davis, 382 u.s. 42 (1965) 382 u.s. 42 burnette et al. v. davis et al. appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of .....
Judgment:
RATLEY v. CROUSE - 382 U.S. 42 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court RATLEY v. CROUSE, 382 U.S. 42 (1965) 382 U.S. 42

RATLEY v. CROUSE, WARDEN.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 551, Misc.
Decided October 25, 1965.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 382 U.S. 42, 43


BURNETTE v. DAVIS, <a href="/101069"> 382 U.S. 42 </a> (1965) 382 U.S. 42 (1965) "> U.S. Supreme Court BURNETTE v. DAVIS, 382 U.S. 42 (1965) 382 U.S. 42

BURNETTE ET AL. v. DAVIS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA. No. 241.
Decided October 25, 1965. *

[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 424, Thornton et al. v. Davis et al., also on appeal from the same court.

245 F. Supp. 241, affirmed.

Aubrey R. Bowles, Jr., and Aubrey R. Bowles III for appellants in No. 241. Samuel W. Tucker and Henry L. Marsh III for appellants in No. 424.

Robert Y. Button, Attorney General of Virginia, R. D. McIlwaine III, Assistant Attorney General, David J. Mays and Henry T. Wickham for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //