Skip to content


James Vs. Gilmore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number389 U.S. 572
AppellantJames
RespondentGilmore
Excerpt:
james v. gilmore - 389 u.s. 572 (1968) u.s. supreme court james v. gilmore, 389 u.s. 572 (1968) 389 u.s. 572 james, state treasurer of texas, et al. v. gilmore et al. appeal from the united states district court for the northern district of texas. no. 850. decided january 15, 1968. 274 f. supp. 75, affirmed. crawford c. martin, attorney general of texas, george m. cowden, first assistant attorney general, and j. c. davis, w. o. shultz ii and james c. mccoy, assistant attorneys general, and a. j. carubbi, jr., for appellants. david r. richards for appellees. per curiam. the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. school comm., city of boston v. board of education, 389 u.s. 572 (1968) 389.....
Judgment:
JAMES v. GILMORE - 389 U.S. 572 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court JAMES v. GILMORE, 389 U.S. 572 (1968) 389 U.S. 572

JAMES, STATE TREASURER OF TEXAS, ET AL. v. GILMORE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS. No. 850.
Decided January 15, 1968.

274 F. Supp. 75, affirmed.

Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, George M. Cowden, First Assistant Attorney General, and J. C. Davis, W. O. Shultz II and James C. McCoy, Assistant Attorneys General, and A. J. Carubbi, Jr., for appellants.

David R. Richards for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.


SCHOOL COMM., CITY OF BOSTON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, <a href="/102124"> 389 U.S. 572 </a> (1968) 389 U.S. 572 (1968) "> U.S. Supreme Court SCHOOL COMM., CITY OF BOSTON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 389 U.S. 572 (1968) 389 U.S. 572

SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF CITY OF BOSTON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
No. 759.
Decided January 15, 1968.

352 Mass. 693, 227 N. E. 2d 729, appeal dismissed.

John W. White for appellant.

Elliot L. Richardson, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and Howard M. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 389 U.S. 572, 573




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