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.

Kaukas Vs. City of Chicago

Kaukas vs City of Chicago

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Oct-14-1963
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100480

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. 8
Subject
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kaukas

Respondent

City of Chicago

Excerpt

kaukas v. city of chicago - 375 u.s. 8 (1963) u.s. supreme court kaukas v. city of chicago, 375 u.s. 8 (1963) 375 u.s. 8 kaukas et ux. v. city of chicago. appeal from the supreme court of illinois. no. 259. decided october 14, 1963. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 27 ill. 2d 197, 188 n. e. 2d 700. harry g. fins and favil david berns for appellants. john c. melaniphy and sydney r. drebin for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. page 375 u.s. 8, 9 trunkline gas co. v. hardin county, 375 u.s. 8 (1963) 375 u.s. 8 (1963) "> u.s. supreme court trunkline gas co. v. hardin county, 375 u.s. 8 (1963) 375 u.s. 8 trunkline gas co. v. hardin county. on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. no. 153. decided october 14, 1963. certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. reported below: 311 f.2d 882 . cecil n. cook for petitioner. william robert smith for respondent. per curiam. the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit, it appearing that the state of texas has passed a statute in connection with controversies of this kind since the petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in this court. this order is entered without reaching the merits.

Full Judgment

KAUKAS v. CITY OF CHICAGO - 375 U.S. 8 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court KAUKAS v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 375 U.S. 8 (1963) 375 U.S. 8

KAUKAS ET UX. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 259.
Decided October 14, 1963.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 27 Ill. 2d 197, 188 N. E. 2d 700.

Harry G. Fins and Favil David Berns for appellants.

John C. Melaniphy and Sydney R. Drebin for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 375 U.S. 8, 9


TRUNKLINE GAS CO. v. HARDIN COUNTY, <a href="/100480"> 375 U.S. 8 </a> (1963) 375 U.S. 8 (1963) "> U.S. Supreme Court TRUNKLINE GAS CO. v. HARDIN COUNTY, 375 U.S. 8 (1963) 375 U.S. 8

TRUNKLINE GAS CO. v. HARDIN COUNTY.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 153.
Decided October 14, 1963.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Reported below: 311 F.2d 882 .

Cecil N. Cook for petitioner.

William Robert Smith for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, it appearing that the State of Texas has passed a statute in connection with controversies of this kind since the petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in this Court. This order is entered without reaching the merits.



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial