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.

Holding Vs. Blankenship

Holding vs Blankenship

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-15-1967
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101684

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
387 U.S. 94
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Holding

Respondent

Blankenship

Excerpt

holding v. blankenship - 387 u.s. 94 (1967) u.s. supreme court holding v. blankenship, 387 u.s. 94 (1967) 387 u.s. 94 holding, dba grand news v. blankenship et al. appeal from the united states district court for the western district of oklahoma. no. 1088. decided may 15, 1967. 259 f. supp. 694, reversed in part and appeal dismissed and certiorari denied in part. samuel w. block, thomas p. sullivan and paul c. duncan for appellant. per curiam. probable jurisdiction noted as to question 1. the judgment of the district court for the western district of oklahoma entered november 4, 1966, is reversed insofar as it adjudged provisions of 1040.1 to 1040.10 of title 21 of the oklahoma statutes to be constitutional. bantam books, inc. v. sullivan, 372 u.s. 58 . treating the nonappealable issue presented by question 2 as if contained in a petition for a writ of certiorari, the petition is denied. see mishkin v. new york, 383 u.s. 502, 512 . mr. justice harlan concurs in the denial of certiorari as to question 2, but would affirm the judgment of the district court as to question 1. mr. justice white would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument. page 387 u.s. 94, 95

Full Judgment

HOLDING v. BLANKENSHIP - 387 U.S. 94 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court HOLDING v. BLANKENSHIP, 387 U.S. 94 (1967) 387 U.S. 94

HOLDING, DBA GRAND NEWS v. BLANKENSHIP ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
OKLAHOMA. No. 1088.
Decided May 15, 1967.

259 F. Supp. 694, reversed in part and appeal dismissed and certiorari denied in part.

Samuel W. Block, Thomas P. Sullivan and Paul C. Duncan for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Probable jurisdiction noted as to Question 1. The judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma entered November 4, 1966, is reversed insofar as it adjudged provisions of 1040.1 to 1040.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes to be constitutional. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 . Treating the nonappealable issue presented by Question 2 as if contained in a petition for a writ of certiorari, the petition is denied. See Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 512 .

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN concurs in the denial of certiorari as to Question 2, but would affirm the judgment of the District Court as to Question 1.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.

Page 387 U.S. 94, 95



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial