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.

Shaw Vs. Garrison

Shaw vs Garrison

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Dec-09-1968
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101851

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
393 U.S. 220
Subject
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shaw

Respondent

Garrison

Excerpt

shaw v. garrison - 393 u.s. 220 (1968) u.s. supreme court shaw v. garrison, 393 u.s. 220 (1968) 393 u.s. 220 shaw v. garrison et al. appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of louisiana. no. 579. decided december 9, 1968. affirmed. herve racivitch for appellant. eberhard p. deutsch and rene h. himel, jr., for appellees. per curiam. the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. the chief justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. landry v. boyle, 393 u.s. 220 (1968) 393 u.s. 220 (1968) "> u.s. supreme court landry v. boyle, 393 u.s. 220 (1968) 393 u.s. 220 landry et al. v. boyle, chief judge, et al. appeal from the united states district court for the northern district of illinois. no. 659. decided december 9, 1968. 280 f. supp. 938, appeal dismissed. robert l. tucker, r. eugene pincham, jean f. williams, leonard karlin, william m. kunstler, and arthur kinoy for appellants. per curiam. the appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with rule 13 (1). page 393 u.s. 220, 221

Full Judgment

SHAW v. GARRISON - 393 U.S. 220 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court SHAW v. GARRISON, 393 U.S. 220 (1968) 393 U.S. 220

SHAW v. GARRISON ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA. No. 579.
Decided December 9, 1968.

Affirmed.

Herve Racivitch for appellant.

Eberhard P. Deutsch and Rene H. Himel, Jr., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


LANDRY v. BOYLE, <a href="/101851"> 393 U.S. 220 </a> (1968) 393 U.S. 220 (1968) "> U.S. Supreme Court LANDRY v. BOYLE, 393 U.S. 220 (1968) 393 U.S. 220

LANDRY ET AL. v. BOYLE, CHIEF JUDGE, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 659.
Decided December 9, 1968.

280 F. Supp. 938, appeal dismissed.

Robert L. Tucker, R. Eugene Pincham, Jean F. Williams, Leonard Karlin, William M. Kunstler, and Arthur Kinoy for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 13 (1).

Page 393 U.S. 220, 221



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial