Blankenship Vs. Holding

Blankenship vs Holding

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided May-15-1967

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101685

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/101685
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: May-15-1967
Case Number: 387 U.S. 95
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Blankenship

Respondent

Holding

Excerpt

blankenship v. holding - 387 u.s. 95 (1967) u.s. supreme court blankenship v. holding, 387 u.s. 95 (1967) 387 u.s. 95 blankenship et al. v. holding, dba grand news. appeal from the united states district court for the western district of oklahoma. no. 1089. decided may 15, 1967. 259 f. supp. 694, affirmed. charles nesbitt, attorney general of oklahoma, and jeff hartmann, assistant attorney general, for appellants. samuel w. block, thomas p. sullivan and paul c. duncan for appellee. per curiam. probable jurisdiction noted. the judgment of the district court for the western district of oklahoma entered november 4, 1966, is affirmed insofar as it adjudged provisions of 1040.1 to 1040.10 of title 21 of the oklahoma statutes to be unconstitutional. page 387 u.s. 95, 96

Full Judgment

BLANKENSHIP v. HOLDING - 387 U.S. 95 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court BLANKENSHIP v. HOLDING, 387 U.S. 95 (1967) 387 U.S. 95

BLANKENSHIP ET AL. v. HOLDING, DBA GRAND NEWS.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
OKLAHOMA. No. 1089.
Decided May 15, 1967.

259 F. Supp. 694, affirmed.

Charles Nesbitt, Attorney General of Oklahoma, and Jeff Hartmann, Assistant Attorney General, for appellants.

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

PER CURIAM.

Probable jurisdiction noted. The judgment of the District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma entered November 4, 1966, is affirmed insofar as it adjudged provisions of 1040.1 to 1040.10 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes to be unconstitutional.

Page 387 U.S. 95, 96

Same Parties Blankenship vs Holding Same Subject Criminal