Skip to content


Blankenship Vs. Holding - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number387 U.S. 95
AppellantBlankenship
RespondentHolding
Excerpt:
.....of oklahoma entered november 4, 1966, is affirmed insofar as it adjudged provisions of 1040.1 to 1040.10 of title 21 of the oklahoma statutes to be unconstitutional. page 387 u.s. 95, 96 .....
Judgment:
BLANKENSHIP v. HOLDING - 387 U.S. 95 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court BLANKENSHIP v. HOLDING, 387 U.S. 95 (1967) 387 U.S. 95

BLANKENSHIP ET AL. v. HOLDING, DBA GRAND NEWS.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
OKLAHOMA. No. 1089.
Decided May 15, 1967.

259 F. Supp. 694, affirmed.

Charles Nesbitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Jeff Hartmann, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

Samuel W. Block, Thomas P. Sullivan and Paul C. Duncan for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Probable jurisdiction noted. The judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma entered November 4, 1966, is affirmed insofar as it adjudged provisions of 1040.1 to 1040.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes to be unconstitutional.

Page 387 U.S. 95, 96




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