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.

King Vs. King

King vs King

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Oct-14-1963
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100489

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. 17
Subject
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

King

Respondent

King

Excerpt

king v. king - 375 u.s. 17 (1963) u.s. supreme court king v. king, 375 u.s. 17 (1963) 375 u.s. 17 king et al. v. king et al. appeal from the supreme court of georgia. no. 153, misc. decided october 14, 1963. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. reported below: 218 ga. 534, 129 s. e. 2d 147. appellants pro se. william k. meadow and robert b. troutman for appellees. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. ryan v. tinsley, 375 u.s. 17 (1963) 375 u.s. 17 (1963) "> u.s. supreme court ryan v. tinsley, 375 u.s. 17 (1963) 375 u.s. 17 ryan v. tinsley, warden. appeal from the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit. no. 403, misc. decided october 14, 1963. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. reported below: 316 f.2d 430 . appellant pro se. duke w. dunbar, attorney general of colorado, frank e. hickey, deputy attorney general, and john e. bush, assistant attorney general, for appellee. per curiam. the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. page 375 u.s. 17, 18

Full Judgment

KING v. KING - 375 U.S. 17 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court KING v. KING, 375 U.S. 17 (1963) 375 U.S. 17

KING ET AL. v. KING ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA.
No. 153, Misc.
Decided October 14, 1963.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 218 Ga. 534, 129 S. E. 2d 147.

Appellants pro se.

William K. Meadow and Robert B. Troutman for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


RYAN v. TINSLEY, <a href="/100489"> 375 U.S. 17 </a> (1963) 375 U.S. 17 (1963) "> U.S. Supreme Court RYAN v. TINSLEY, 375 U.S. 17 (1963) 375 U.S. 17

RYAN v. TINSLEY, WARDEN.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT.
No. 403, Misc.
Decided October 14, 1963.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 316 F.2d 430 .

Appellant pro se.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and John E. Bush, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 375 U.S. 17, 18



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial