Skip to content


Miller Vs. Virginia - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number383 U.S. 831
AppellantMiller
RespondentVirginia
Excerpt:
.....taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. mr. justice douglas is of the opinion that in treating the papers as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari should be granted. drum v. seawell, 383 u.s. 831 (1966) 383 u.s. 831 (1966) "> u.s. supreme court drum v. seawell, 383 u.s. 831 (1966) 383 u.s. 831 drum et al. v. seawell, chairman of the north carolina state board of elections, et al. appeal from the united states district court for the middle district of north carolina. no. 1128. decided april 4, 1966. 249 f. supp. 877, affirmed. louis rabil and robinson o. everett for appellants. t. wade bruton, attorney general of north carolina, james f. bullock, assistant attorney general,.....
Judgment:
MILLER v. VIRGINIA - 383 U.S. 831 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court MILLER v. VIRGINIA, 383 U.S. 831 (1966) 383 U.S. 831

MILLER v. VIRGINIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 196, Misc.
Decided April 4, 1966.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Appellant pro se.

Reno S. Harp III, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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 in treating the papers as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari should be granted.


DRUM v. SEAWELL, <a href="/101418"> 383 U.S. 831 </a> (1966) 383 U.S. 831 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court DRUM v. SEAWELL, 383 U.S. 831 (1966) 383 U.S. 831

DRUM ET AL. v. SEAWELL, CHAIRMAN OF THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE
BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA. No. 1128.
Decided April 4, 1966.

249 F. Supp. 877, affirmed.

Louis Rabil and Robinson O. Everett for appellants.

T. Wade Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, James F. Bullock, Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas L. Young for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to advance and expedite consideration is granted. The judgment is affirmed.

Page 383 U.S. 831, 832




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