Miller Vs. Haines

Miller vs Haines

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Jan-15-1968

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/102134

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/102134
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Jan-15-1968
Case Number: 389 U.S. 582
Subject: Company

Case Summary

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

Company

Key legal issue: Company

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Miller

Respondent

Haines

Excerpt

miller v. haines - 389 u.s. 582 (1968) u.s. supreme court miller v. haines, 389 u.s. 582 (1968) 389 u.s. 582 miller v. haines, director, department of mental hygiene and correction of ohio, et al. appeal from the supreme court of ohio. no. 840. decided january 15, 1968. appeal dismissed. freeman t. eagleson, jr., for appellant. william b. saxbe, attorney general of ohio, winifred a. dunton, assistant attorney general, and charles s. lopeman for appellees. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. page 389 u.s. 582, 583

Full Judgment

MILLER v. HAINES - 389 U.S. 582 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court MILLER v. HAINES, 389 U.S. 582 (1968) 389 U.S. 582

MILLER v. HAINES, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE AND
CORRECTION OF OHIO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. No. 840.
Decided January 15, 1968.

Appeal dismissed.

Freeman T. Eagleson, Jr., for appellant.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, Winifred A. Dunton, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles S. Lopeman for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 389 U.S. 582, 583

Same Parties Miller vs Haines Same Subject Company