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.

Rudnicki Vs. Cox

Rudnicki vs Cox

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Feb-18-1963
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/100705

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
372 U.S. 226
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rudnicki

Respondent

Cox

Excerpt

rudnicki v. cox - 372 u.s. 226 (1963) u.s. supreme court rudnicki v. cox, 372 u.s. 226 (1963) 372 u.s. 226 rudnicki v. cox et al. appeal from the united states district court for the district of massachusetts. no. 706. decided february 18, 1963. per curiam. the appeal is dismissed. page 372 u.s. 226, 227 board cty. comm'rs, jefferson v. city & cty., denver, 372 u.s. 226 (1963) 372 u.s. 226 (1963) "> u.s. supreme court board cty. comm'rs, jefferson v. city & cty., denver, 372 u.s. 226 (1963) 372 u.s. 226 board of county commissioners of jefferson county, colorado, et al. v. city and county of denver, colorado, et al. appeal from the supreme court of colorado. no. 635. decided february 18, 1963. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 150 colo. 198, 372 p.2d 152. charles ginsberg for appellants. robert s. wham, richard p. matsch, charles s. rhyne, brice w. rhyne and alfred j. tighe, jr. for appellees. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice white took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Full Judgment

RUDNICKI v. COX - 372 U.S. 226 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court RUDNICKI v. COX, 372 U.S. 226 (1963) 372 U.S. 226

RUDNICKI v. COX ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MASSACHUSETTS. No. 706.
Decided February 18, 1963.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed.

Page 372 U.S. 226, 227


BOARD CTY. COMM'RS, JEFFERSON v. CITY & CTY., DENVER, <a href="/100705"> 372 U.S. 226 </a> (1963) 372 U.S. 226 (1963) "> U.S. Supreme Court BOARD CTY. COMM'RS, JEFFERSON v. CITY & CTY., DENVER, 372 U.S. 226 (1963) 372 U.S. 226

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO, ET AL. v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO. No. 635.
Decided February 18, 1963.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 150 Colo. 198, 372 P.2d 152.

Charles Ginsberg for appellants.

Robert S. Wham, Richard P. Matsch, Charles S. Rhyne, Brice W. Rhyne and Alfred J. Tighe, Jr. for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE WHITE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial