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.

Rutherford Vs. Washington

Rutherford vs Washington

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-23-1966
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101378

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
384 U.S. 267
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rutherford

Respondent

Washington

Excerpt

rutherford v. washington - 384 u.s. 267 (1966) u.s. supreme court rutherford v. washington, 384 u.s. 267 (1966) 384 u.s. 267 rutherford v. washington. appeal from the supreme court of washington. no. 1167. decided may 23, 1966. 66 wash. 2d 851, 405 p.2d 719, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. kenneth a. macdonald for appellant. per curiam. the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. page 384 u.s. 267, 268 day v. united states, 384 u.s. 267 (1966) 384 u.s. 267 (1966) "> u.s. supreme court day v. united states, 384 u.s. 267 (1966) 384 u.s. 267 day et al. v. united states et al. appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of california. no. 1086. decided may 23, 1966. 246 f. supp. 689, affirmed. edward j. hickey, jr., and james l. highsaw, jr., for appellants. solicitor general marshall, assistant attorney general turner, howard e. shapiro, charles l. marinaccio, robert w. ginnane and leonard s. goodman for the united states et al. charles w. burkett, herbert a. waterman and randolph karr for appellee southern pacific co. per curiam. the motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Full Judgment

RUTHERFORD v. WASHINGTON - 384 U.S. 267 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court RUTHERFORD v. WASHINGTON, 384 U.S. 267 (1966) 384 U.S. 267

RUTHERFORD v. WASHINGTON.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 1167.
Decided May 23, 1966.

66 Wash. 2d 851, 405 P.2d 719, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Kenneth A. MacDonald for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 384 U.S. 267, 268


DAY v. UNITED STATES, <a href="/101378"> 384 U.S. 267 </a> (1966) 384 U.S. 267 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court DAY v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 267 (1966) 384 U.S. 267

DAY ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA. No. 1086.
Decided May 23, 1966.

246 F. Supp. 689, affirmed.

Edward J. Hickey, Jr., and James L. Highsaw, Jr., for appellants.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Charles L. Marinaccio, Robert W. Ginnane and Leonard S. Goodman for the United States et al. Charles W. Burkett, Herbert A. Waterman and Randolph Karr for appellee Southern Pacific Co.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial