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.

Parrot Vs. Tallahassee

Parrot vs Tallahassee

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-03-1965
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101152

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
381 U.S. 129
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

Parrot

Respondent

Tallahassee

Excerpt

parrot v. tallahassee - 381 u.s. 129 (1965) u.s. supreme court parrot v. tallahassee, 381 u.s. 129 (1965) 381 u.s. 129 parrot et al. v. city of tallahassee. on petition for writ of certiorari to the circuit court of the second judicial circuit, leon county, florida. no. 958. decided may 3, 1965. a minor procedural defect which petitioners tried to correct does not constitute an adequate independent state ground for decision barring review by this court. the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. robinson v. florida, 378 u.s. 153 . certiorari granted and judgment reversed. jack greenberg and derrick a. bell, jr., for petitioners. roy t. rhodes and edw. j. hill for respondent. per curiam. the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the florida circuit court is reversed. robinson v. florida, 378 u.s. 153 . respondent asserts that the judgment below rests on an adequate independent state ground in that petitioners, through misunderstanding or oversight, failed to obtain certification of the circuit court record submitted with their otherwise timely petition for writ of certiorari in the florida district court of appeal, first district. petitioners tried to correct this nonjurisdictional defect (see, e. g., aris v. state, 162 so.2d 670 (fla. dist. ct. app.)) when notified of it, but their petition was dismissed nonetheless. we do not find this procedural ground adequate to bar review by this court. see staub v. city of baxley, 355 u.s. 313 ; naacp v. alabama, 357 u.s. 449 ; naacp v. alabama, 377 u.s. 288 . page 381 u.s. 129, 130

Full Judgment

PARROT v. TALLAHASSEE - 381 U.S. 129 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court PARROT v. TALLAHASSEE, 381 U.S. 129 (1965) 381 U.S. 129

PARROT ET AL. v. CITY OF TALLAHASSEE.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA. No. 958.
Decided May 3, 1965.

A minor procedural defect which petitioners tried to correct does not constitute an adequate independent state ground for decision barring review by this Court. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is reversed. Robinson v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153 .

Certiorari granted and judgment reversed.

Jack Greenberg and Derrick A. Bell, Jr., for petitioners.

Roy T. Rhodes and Edw. J. Hill for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Florida Circuit Court is reversed. Robinson v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153 .

Respondent asserts that the judgment below rests on an adequate independent state ground in that petitioners, through misunderstanding or oversight, failed to obtain certification of the Circuit Court record submitted with their otherwise timely petition for writ of certiorari in the Florida District Court of Appeal, First District. Petitioners tried to correct this nonjurisdictional defect (see, e. g., Aris v. State, 162 So.2d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.)) when notified of it, but their petition was dismissed nonetheless. We do not find this procedural ground adequate to bar review by this Court. See Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 ; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 ; NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288 .

Page 381 U.S. 129, 130



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial