Skip to content


Miller Vs. Haines - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number389 U.S. 582
AppellantMiller
RespondentHaines
Excerpt:
miller v. haines - 389 u.s. 582 (1968) u.s. supreme court miller v. haines, 389 u.s. 582 (1968) 389 u.s. 582 miller v. haines, director, department of mental hygiene and correction of ohio, et al. appeal from the supreme court of ohio. no. 840. decided january 15, 1968. appeal dismissed. freeman t. eagleson, jr., for appellant. william b. saxbe, attorney general of ohio, winifred a. dunton, assistant attorney general, and charles s. lopeman for appellees. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. page 389 u.s. 582, 583
Judgment:
MILLER v. HAINES - 389 U.S. 582 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court MILLER v. HAINES, 389 U.S. 582 (1968) 389 U.S. 582

MILLER v. HAINES, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE AND
CORRECTION OF OHIO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 840.
Decided January 15, 1968.

Appeal dismissed.

Freeman T. Eagleson, Jr., for appellant.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, Winifred A. Dunton, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles S. Lopeman for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 389 U.S. 582, 583




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