DAHL v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, 393 U.S. 408 (1969)
Decided:
January 20, 1969
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
DAHL v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, 393 U.S. 408 (1969) 393 U.S. 408DAHL ET AL. v. REPUBLICAN STATE
COMMITTEE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 596.
Decided January 20, 1969.
Vacated and remanded.
Alfred J. Schweppe for appellants.
Bradley T. Jones for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded in order that the District Court may enter a fresh decree from which appellants may, if they wish, perfect a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals. Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, believing that jurisdiction lies in this Court, would affirm the judgment below.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 596.
Decided January 20, 1969.
Vacated and remanded. Alfred J. Schweppe for appellants. Bradley T. Jones for appellees. PER CURIAM. The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded in order that the District Court may enter a fresh decree from which appellants may, if they wish, perfect a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals. Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, believing that jurisdiction lies in this Court, would affirm the judgment below. Page 393 U.S. 408, 409
U.S. Supreme Court
DAHL v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, 393 U.S. 408 (1969) 393 U.S. 408 DAHL ET AL. v. REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON. No. 596.
Decided January 20, 1969.
Vacated and remanded. Alfred J. Schweppe for appellants. Bradley T. Jones for appellees. PER CURIAM. The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded in order that the District Court may enter a fresh decree from which appellants may, if they wish, perfect a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals. Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, believing that jurisdiction lies in this Court, would affirm the judgment below. Page 393 U.S. 408, 409
Search This Case
