Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U.S. 427 (1967)

387 U.S. 427
87 S. Ct. 1622
18 L. Ed. 2d 865
US-DOC-25129110
locator
Case details
Bluebook Citation
Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U.S. 427 (1967)
Full caption
Harry SCHACKMAN et al. v. Roger ARNEBERGH.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
May 29, 1967
Opinion
Per curiam
Harry SCHACKMAN et al. v. Roger ARNEBERGH.
No. 1186.
May 29, 1967.
-Burton Marks, for appellants.
Roger Arnebergh, pro se, Bourke Jones and Robert B. Burns, for appellees Arnebergh and others.
Harold W. Kennedy, George Wakefield and Martin E. Weekes, for appellees Younger and others.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, pro se, and A. Barry Cappello, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee Lynch.
PER CURIAM.
1
Appellants seek review by this Court of the refusal by the District Court to convene a three-judge District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281—2284. We have held that such review is available in the Court of Appeals, Idlewild Bon oy age Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794, and not in this Court. Buchanan v. Rhodes, 385 U.S. 3, 87 S.Ct. 33, 17 L.Ed.2d 3.
2
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
3
Motion granted.
CC∅ | Transformed by Public.Resource.Org
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access