Bailey v. Patterson

Citation368 U.S. 346,7 L.Ed.2d 332,82 S.Ct. 282
PartiesSamuel BAILEY et al., v. Joe T. PATTERSON et al. No. ____
Decision Date18 December 1961
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Constance Baker Motley, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and R. Jess Brown, for movants.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen. of Mississippi, Charles Clark and Peter M. Stockett, Special Asst. Attys. Gen., and Dugas Shands and Edward L. Cates, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents Patterson and others.

Thomas H. Watkins, for respondents City of Jackson and others.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Harold H. Greene and Howard A. Glickstein, for the United States, as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an injunction to stay the prosecution of a number of criminal cases in the courts of Mississippi pending an appeal to this Court from the judgment of a three-judge Federal District Court. 199 F.Supp. 595. A federal injunction to stay state criminal proceedings is an extraordinary remedy. Cf. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714. In addition to the considerations normally attending an application for such relief, a serious question of standing is presented on this motion, in that it appears that the movants themselves are not being prosecuted in the Mississippi courts. On the record before us the motion for a stay injunction pending appeal is denied.

Motion denied.

Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER concur in the denial of a stay solely on the ground that the three movants are the themselves being prosecuted or threatened with prosecutions in Mississippi and they therefore reach no other questions.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Perez v. Lavine, 73 Civ. 4577.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 22 d1 Julho d1 1974
    ... ... is constitutionally insubstantial only if it can be deemed "essentially fictitious", "obviously frivolous', or "obviously without merit." See Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 82 S. Ct. 549, 7 L.Ed.2d 332 (1962); Hannis Distilling Co. v. Baltimore, 216 U.S. 285, 30 S.Ct. 326, 54 L.Ed. 482 (1910); ... ...
  • Graddick v. Newman
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 2 d3 Setembro d3 1981
    ...make a showing of a threat of irreparable injury to interests that he properly represents. See Bailey v. Patterson, 368 U.S. 346, 346-347, 82 S.Ct. 282, 282, 7 L.Ed.2d 332 (1961) (per curiam). This requirement has two dimensions. The first, embraced by the concept of "standing," looks to th......
  • Chaffee v. Johnson, Civ. A. No. 3535.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi
    • 18 d1 Maio d1 1964
    ...remedy which will not be indulged in by a Federal Court of equity except in a case clearly demanding it. Bailey v. Patterson, 368 U.S. 346, 82 S.Ct. 282, 7 L.Ed.2d 332; Warner Bros. Pictures v. Gittone, U.S. C.A.3rd, 110 F.2d 292; Murray Hill Restaurant v. Thirteen Twenty One Locust, U.S.C.......
  • Bailey v. Patterson, 643
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 26 d1 Fevereiro d1 1962
    ...1192, 3 L.Ed.2d 1375. We denied a motion to stay the prosecution of a number of criminal cases pending disposition of this appeal. 368 U.S. 346, 82 S.Ct. 282. Appellants lack standing to enjoin criminal prosecutions under Mississippi's breach-of-peace statutes, since they do not allege that......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT