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.

Williams Vs. Brown

Williams vs Brown

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-22-1980
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/104815

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
446 U.S. 236
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Williams

Respondent

Brown

Excerpt

.....assistant attorney general days, deputy solicitor general wallace, elinor hadley stillman, brian k. landsberg, jessica dunsay silver, dennis j. dimsey, and miriam r. eisenstein. per curiam. the judgment of the court of appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of the decision of the court announced today in city of mobile v. bolden, ante, p. 55. it is so ordered. [for dissenting opinion of mr. justice brennan, see ante, p. 94.] [for dissenting opinion of mr. justice marshall, see ante, p. 103.] mr. justice blackmun, concurring. i, of course, must accept the court's vacation of the judgment and its remand. if, however, we were to reach the page 446 u.s. 236, 237 merits, then, in contrast to the result in city of mobile v. bolden, ante, p. 55, i would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in this case. mr. justice white, dissenting. because the decision below in this case is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law virtually identical to those in city of mobile v. bolden, ante, p. 55, i dissent for the reasons stated in my opinion in that case, ante, p. 94. page 446 u.s. 236, 238

Full Judgment

WILLIAMS v. BROWN - 446 U.S. 236 (1980)
U.S. Supreme Court WILLIAMS v. BROWN, 446 U.S. 236 (1980) 446 U.S. 236

WILLIAMS ET AL. v. BROWN ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

No. 78-357.

Argued March 19, 1979. Reargued October 29, 1979.
Decided April 22, 1980.

575 F.2d 298 , vacated and remanded.

William H. Allen reargued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Donald Harrison, John Michael Clear, and Robert C. Campbell III.

Eric Schnapper reargued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs were J. U. Blacksher, Larry Menefee, and Jack Greenberg.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Turner reargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. On the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Elinor Hadley Stillman, Brian K. Landsberg, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Dennis J. Dimsey, and Miriam R. Eisenstein.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of the decision of the Court announced today in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55.

    It is so ordered.

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, see ante, p. 94.]

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, see ante, p. 103.]

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring.

I, of course, must accept the Court's vacation of the judgment and its remand. If, however, we were to reach the

Page 446 U.S. 236, 237

merits, then, in contrast to the result in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting.

Because the decision below in this case is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law virtually identical to those in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I dissent for the reasons stated in my opinion in that case, ante, p. 94.

Page 446 U.S. 236, 238



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial