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.

Mckinnie Vs. Tennessee

Mckinnie vs Tennessee

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-05-1965
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101187

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
380 U.S. 449
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mckinnie

Respondent

Tennessee

Excerpt

mc kinnie v. tennessee - 380 u.s. 449 (1965) u.s. supreme court mc kinnie v. tennessee, 380 u.s. 449 (1965) 380 u.s. 449 mc kinnie et al. v. tennessee. certiorari to the supreme court of tennessee. no. 148. argued march 8, 1965. decided april 5, 1965. ___ tenn. ___, 379 s. w. 2d 214, reversed. james m. nabrit iii argued the cause for petitioners. with him on the briefs were jack greenberg, constance baker motley, avon n. williams, z. alexander looby and charles l. black, jr. thomas e. fox, assistant attorney general of tennessee, argued the cause for respondent. with him on the brief was george f. mccanless, attorney general of tennessee. per curiam. the judgment is reversed. hamm v. city of rock hill and lupper v. arkansas, 379 u.s. 306 . mr. justice stewart would vacate the judgment and remand the case to the supreme court of tennessee for reconsideration in the light of supervening federal legislation, in accordance with the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in hamm v. city of rock hill, 379 u.s. 306, 326 . mr. justice black, mr. justice harlan, and mr. justice white would affirm the judgment of the supreme court of tennessee for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in hamm v. city of rock hill, 379 u.s. 306, 318 , 322, 327. page 380 u.s. 449, 450

Full Judgment

Mc KINNIE v. TENNESSEE - 380 U.S. 449 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court Mc KINNIE v. TENNESSEE, 380 U.S. 449 (1965) 380 U.S. 449

Mc KINNIE ET AL. v. TENNESSEE.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
No. 148.
Argued March 8, 1965.
Decided April 5, 1965.

___ Tenn. ___, 379 S. W. 2d 214, reversed.

James M. Nabrit III argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Jack Greenberg, Constance Baker Motley, Avon N. Williams, Z. Alexander Looby and Charles L. Black, Jr.

Thomas E. Fox, Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is reversed. Hamm v. City of Rock Hill and Lupper v. Arkansas, 379 U.S. 306 .

MR. JUSTICE STEWART would vacate the judgment and remand the case to the Supreme Court of Tennessee for reconsideration in the light of supervening federal legislation, in accordance with the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306, 326 .

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, and MR. JUSTICE WHITE would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U.S. 306, 318 , 322, 327.

Page 380 U.S. 449, 450



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial