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.

Wells Vs. Reynolds

Wells vs Reynolds

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Oct-18-1965
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101078

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
382 U.S. 39
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Wells

Respondent

Reynolds

Excerpt

wells v. reynolds - 382 u.s. 39 (1965) u.s. supreme court wells v. reynolds, 382 u.s. 39 (1965) 382 u.s. 39 wells et al. v. reynolds et al. appeal from the united states district court for the middle district of georgia. no. 258. decided october 18, 1965. 238 f. supp. 779, affirmed. jack greenberg and james m. nabrit iii for appellants. per curiam. the judgment is affirmed. mr. justice douglas, mr. justice brennan and mr. justice fortas dissent. shakespeare v. city of pasadena, 382 u.s. 39 (1965) 382 u.s. 39 (1965) "> u.s. supreme court shakespeare v. city of pasadena, 382 u.s. 39 (1965) 382 u.s. 39 shakespeare et al. v. city of pasadena. appeal from the supreme court of california. no. 281. decided october 18, 1965. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. appellants pro se. allyn h. barber for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dispense with printing the jurisdictional statement is granted. 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 writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. page 382 u.s. 39, 40

Full Judgment

WELLS v. REYNOLDS - 382 U.S. 39 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court WELLS v. REYNOLDS, 382 U.S. 39 (1965) 382 U.S. 39

WELLS ET AL. v. REYNOLDS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
GEORGIA. No. 258.
Decided October 18, 1965.

238 F. Supp. 779, affirmed.

Jack Greenberg and James M. Nabrit III for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE FORTAS dissent.


SHAKESPEARE v. CITY OF PASADENA, <a href="/101078"> 382 U.S. 39 </a> (1965) 382 U.S. 39 (1965) "> U.S. Supreme Court SHAKESPEARE v. CITY OF PASADENA, 382 U.S. 39 (1965) 382 U.S. 39

SHAKESPEARE ET AL. v. CITY OF PASADENA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 281.
Decided October 18, 1965.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Appellants pro se.

Allyn H. Barber for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dispense with printing the jurisdictional statement is granted.

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 writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 382 U.S. 39, 40



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial