The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' motion to advance the case but vacated the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case back to that court. This was done based on the respondent's suggestion that the case was moot since the respondent represented that the injunction issued below would be set aside without prejudice to the petitioners' right to continue the case if the injunction was not actually vacated by the lower trial court.
The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' motion to advance the case but vacated the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case back to that court. This was done based on the respondent's suggestion that the case was moot since the respondent represented that the injunction issued below would be set aside without prejudice to the petitioners' right to continue the case if the injunction was not actually vacated by the lower trial court.
Copyright:
Public Domain
Available Formats
Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' motion to advance the case but vacated the judgment of the lower court and remanded the case back to that court. This was done based on the respondent's suggestion that the case was moot since the respondent represented that the injunction issued below would be set aside without prejudice to the petitioners' right to continue the case if the injunction was not actually vacated by the lower trial court.
Copyright:
Public Domain
Available Formats
Download as COURT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
COLORED PEOPLE et al., petitioners v. WEBB'S CITY, INC. No. 362.
Supreme Court of the United States
February 17, 1964
Robert L. Carter, Fred G. Minnis and Richard Feder, for petitioners.
D. M. Patrick, for respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. PER CURIAM.
Petitioners' motion to advance is denied. On respondent's suggestion of
mootness, the judgment of the District Court of Appeals of Florida, Second District, is vacated and the cause remanded to that court for appropriate proceedings to effectuate respondent's representation that the injunction below will be set aside, without prejudice to the right of petitioner to move to vacate today's order in the event the injunction is not promptly vacated by the trial court.
Pitkin Auto Exchange, Inc. v. Lazarus Joseph and David I. Shivitz, Trustees in Bankruptcy of The Sire Plan, Inc. (Preston House Sire Plan, Inc.), 324 F.2d 168, 2d Cir. (1963)
United States of America Ex Rel. Edwin Gockley v. David N. Myers, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania, 411 F.2d 216, 3rd Cir. (1969)
In Re Grand Jury Investigation. Appeal of Carl Max Janavitz, Esquire and Burton Sandler, Esquire, in No. 77-1916. Appeal of United States of America, in No. 77-2054, 576 F.2d 1071, 3rd Cir. (1978)
Marian Corporation, Joseph D. Casalaro and Robert C. Hunt v. Miles Spence Bray, Trustee in Bankruptcy For The R and P Masonry Company Incorporated, 235 F.2d 318, 4th Cir. (1956)
United States of America Ex Rel. Elmer Carl Linde v. Joseph R. Brierley, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 437 F.2d 324, 3rd Cir. (1970)