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.

Jobe Vs. City of Erlanger

Jobe vs City of Erlanger

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Oct-11-1965
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101086

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. 12
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jobe

Respondent

City of Erlanger

Excerpt

jobe v. city of erlanger - 382 u.s. 12 (1965) u.s. supreme court jobe v. city of erlanger, 382 u.s. 12 (1965) 382 u.s. 12 jobe et al. v. city of erlanger. appeal from the court of appeals of kentucky. no. 62. decided october 11, 1965. 383 s. w. 2d 675, appeal dismissed. james c. ware for appellants. harry l. riggs, jr., for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice harlan is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. aluminum co. of america v. united states, 382 u.s. 12 (1965) 382 u.s. 12 (1965) "> u.s. supreme court aluminum co. of america v. united states, 382 u.s. 12 (1965) 382 u.s. 12 aluminum co. of america et al. v. united states. appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of missouri. no. 84. decided october 11, 1965. 233 f. supp. 718; 247 f. supp. 308, affirmed. herbert a. bergson, howard adler, jr., daniel h. margolis and william k. unverzagt for appellants. solicitor general cox, acting assistant attorney general wright, lionel kestenbaum, jerry z. pruzansky and edna lingreen for the united states. per curiam. the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. page 382 u.s. 12, 13

Full Judgment

JOBE v. CITY OF ERLANGER - 382 U.S. 12 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court JOBE v. CITY OF ERLANGER, 382 U.S. 12 (1965) 382 U.S. 12

JOBE ET AL. v. CITY OF ERLANGER.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY.
No. 62.
Decided October 11, 1965.

383 S. W. 2d 675, appeal dismissed.

James C. Ware for appellants.

Harry L. Riggs, Jr., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA v. UNITED STATES, <a href="/101086"> 382 U.S. 12 </a> (1965) 382 U.S. 12 (1965) "> U.S. Supreme Court ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA v. UNITED STATES, 382 U.S. 12 (1965) 382 U.S. 12

ALUMINUM CO. OF AMERICA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI. No. 84.
Decided October 11, 1965.

233 F. Supp. 718; 247 F. Supp. 308, affirmed.

Herbert A. Bergson, Howard Adler, Jr., Daniel H. Margolis and William K. Unverzagt for appellants.

Solicitor General Cox, Acting Assistant Attorney General Wright, Lionel Kestenbaum, Jerry Z. Pruzansky and Edna Lingreen for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 382 U.S. 12, 13



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial