TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Badgley v. Hare

Badgley v. Hare, 385 U.S. 114 (1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
November 21, 1966
Docket
No. 505
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
385 U.S. 11487 S. Ct. 33817 L. Ed. 2d 2071966 U.S. LEXIS 181
Cited by 7 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Per Curiam

385 U.S. 114 (1966)

BADGLEY ET AL.

v.

HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.

No. 505.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided November 21, 1966. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.

William T. Gossett for appellants.

Frank J. Kelly, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Curtis G. Beck, Assistant Attorney General, for Hare; Theodore Sachs for Scholle et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1967: 11970: 21971: 11972: 11992: 219672026peak 1970 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Sincock v. Gately262 F. Supp. 739 (D. Del. 1967)
  2. Wells v. Rockefeller311 F. Supp. 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)
  3. Cummings v. Meskill341 F. Supp. 139 (D. Conn. 1972)
  4. Skolnick v. Mayor of Chicago319 F. Supp. 1219 (N.D. Ill. 1970)
  5. In re Apportionment, State Legislature-1992486 N.W.2d 639 (Mich. 1992)
  6. Cousins v. City Council of City of Chicago322 F. Supp. 428 (N.D. Ill. 1971)

Most recent

  1. In re Apportionment, State Legislature-1992486 N.W.2d 639 (Mich. 1992)
  2. Neff v. Secretary of State439 Mich. 715 (1992)
  3. Cummings v. Meskill341 F. Supp. 139 (D. Conn. 1972)
  4. Cousins v. City Council of City of Chicago322 F. Supp. 428 (N.D. Ill. 1971)
  5. Skolnick v. Mayor of Chicago319 F. Supp. 1219 (N.D. Ill. 1970)
  6. Wells v. Rockefeller311 F. Supp. 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list