Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Holding v. Blankenship 387 U.S. 94

← Cases

Holding v. Blankenship

387 U.S. 94 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1967-05-15 Docket No. 1088 English

Judges Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the denial of certiorari as to Question 2, but would affirm the judgment of the District Court as to Question 1.; Mr. Justice White would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.

Delivered by Per Curiam.

Contents

Majority

p. 94
HOLDING, dba GRAND NEWS v. BLANKENSHIP et al.
No. 1088.
Decided May 15, 1967.
Samuel W. Block, Thomas P. Sullivan and Paul C. Duncan for appellant.

Probable jurisdiction noted as to Question 1. The judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma entered November 4,1966, is reversed insofar as it adjudged provisions of §§ 1040.1 to 1040.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes to be constitutional. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58 . Treating the nonappealable issue presented by Question 2 as if contained in a petition for a writ of certiorari, the petition is denied. See Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502 , 512.

Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the denial of certiorari as to Question 2, but would affirm the judgment of the District Court as to Question 1.

Mr. Justice White would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.

Cases cited