Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Davis Vs. City of Bowling Green

Davis vs City of Bowling Green

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Oct-21-1963
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100466

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
375 U.S. 43
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Davis

Respondent

City of Bowling Green

Excerpt

davis v. city of bowling green - 375 u.s. 43 (1963) u.s. supreme court davis v. city of bowling green, 375 u.s. 43 (1963) 375 u.s. 43 davis et al. v. city of bowling green, kentucky, et al. appeal from the united states district court for the western district of kentucky. no. 331. decided october 21, 1963. judgment affirmed. albert o. scafuro for appellants. squire r. ogden for appellees. per curiam. the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. page 375 u.s. 43, 44 humble oil & refining co. v. male, 375 u.s. 43 (1963) 375 u.s. 43 (1963) "> u.s. supreme court humble oil & refining co. v. male, 375 u.s. 43 (1963) 375 u.s. 43 humble oil & refining co. et al. v. male, commissioner, department of labor & industry, new jersey. appeal from the supreme court of new jersey. no. 326. decided october 21, 1963. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. t. girard wharton and john w. fritz for appellants. arthur j. sills, attorney general of new jersey, and theodore i. botter, first assistant attorney general, for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Full Judgment

DAVIS v. CITY OF BOWLING GREEN - 375 U.S. 43 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court DAVIS v. CITY OF BOWLING GREEN, 375 U.S. 43 (1963) 375 U.S. 43

DAVIS ET AL. v. CITY OF BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY. No. 331.
Decided October 21, 1963.

Judgment affirmed.

Albert O. Scafuro for appellants.

Squire R. Ogden for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 375 U.S. 43, 44


HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. v. MALE, <a href="/100466"> 375 U.S. 43 </a> (1963) 375 U.S. 43 (1963) "> U.S. Supreme Court HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. v. MALE, 375 U.S. 43 (1963) 375 U.S. 43

HUMBLE OIL & REFINING CO. ET AL. v. MALE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR & INDUSTRY, NEW JERSEY.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY. No. 326.
Decided October 21, 1963.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

T. Girard Wharton and John W. Fritz for appellants.

Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Theodore I. Botter, First Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial