JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, ST., WASHINGTON v. KING CTY. HOSP., 390 U.S. 598 (1968)
Syllabus
Decided April 8, 1968.
U.S. Supreme Court
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, ST., WASHINGTON v. KING CTY. HOSP., 390 U.S. 598 (1968) 390 U.S. 598JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON ET AL. v. KING
COUNTY HOSPITAL UNIT NO. 1 (HARBORVIEW) ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF
Decided April 8, 1968.
278 F. Supp. 488, affirmed.
Victor V. Blackwell, Daniel Brink and Kenneth S. Jacobs for appellants.
John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, James B. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, and James E. Kennedy for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.
Opinions
COUNTY HOSPITAL UNIT NO. 1 (HARBORVIEW) ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 1111.
Decided April 8, 1968.
278 F. Supp. 488, affirmed. Victor V. Blackwell, Daniel Brink and Kenneth S. Jacobs for appellants. John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, James B. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, and James E. Kennedy for appellees. PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument. Page 390 U.S. 598, 599
U.S. Supreme Court
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, ST., WASHINGTON v. KING CTY. HOSP., 390 U.S. 598 (1968) 390 U.S. 598 JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ET AL. v. KINGCOUNTY HOSPITAL UNIT NO. 1 (HARBORVIEW) ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 1111.
Decided April 8, 1968.
278 F. Supp. 488, affirmed. Victor V. Blackwell, Daniel Brink and Kenneth S. Jacobs for appellants. John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, James B. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, and James E. Kennedy for appellees. PER CURIAM. The judgment is affirmed, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument. Page 390 U.S. 598, 599
Search This Case
