Shub v. Simpson Simpson v. Gerende
| Decision Date | 23 October 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 372,No. 371,371,372 |
| Citation | 340 U.S. 861,71 S.Ct. 91,95 L.Ed. 629 |
| Parties | Louis SHUB, appellant, v. Vivian V. SIMPSON, Secretary of State of Maryland. Vivian V. SIMPSON, Secretary of State of Maryland, petitioner, v. Thelma GERENDE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
No. 371 is a motion to advance and expedite the hearing of an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland affirming the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus.
Appellant, petitioner below, was nominated by the Progressive Party for Governor of Maryland at a convention held on August 7, 1950. On August 18, nine days before the last date permitted by law, he tendered a certificate of nomination to the Secretary of State, a prerequisite to appearing on the ballot for the election on November 7. On the same day, August 18, the tender was rejected for failure to file an affidavit required by the Maryland Subversive Activities Act of 1949. On September 14, petitioner obtained from the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County an order to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued to compel the Secretary of State to accept the certificate. The Secretary, on September 27, demurred to the petition; and on October 9, after a hearing, the court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition. On appeal to the Maryland Court of Appeals argument was heard on October 12. That Court entered a per curiam order, two judges dissenting, the same day, affirming the judgment against the petitioner and, obviously deeming an exposition of the statute necessary, stated that an opinion would thereafter be filed. On October 18 petitioner filed an appeal from this order. In this situation the motion to advance and expedite is denied.
The order denying the motion to advance and expedite No. 371 in all probability deprives this appellant of an opportunity to have a final decision on the grave constitutional questions which he presents. This means that before the Court can consider the case in the course of ordinary procedure, the election in which he desires to run for Governor will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Yates v. United States Schneiderman v. United States Ai Richmond v. United States
- Dennis v. United States
-
United States v. Branigan
...1013, 10 L.Ed.2d 11 (1963); United States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201, 216-224 (2d Cir.), cert. denied as to this issue, 340 U.S. 863, 71 S.Ct. 91, 95 L.Ed. 630 (1950). 4 United States v. Cohen, 275 F.Supp. 724, 740 (D.Md.1967) (three-judge court). Cf. Pope v. United States, 372 F.2d 710, 723 (......
-
Baggett v. Bullitt, 5598.
...Wyman, 360 U.S. 72, 80, 79 S.Ct. 1040, 3 L.Ed.2d 1090. 24 See Shub v. Simpson, 196 Md. 177, 76 A.2d 332, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 861, 71 S.Ct. 91, 95 L.Ed. 629, in which the Maryland court so construed a statute couched in terms substantially similar to those employed in Chapter 377, Law......
-
The Supreme Court as Protector of Civil Rights: Freedom of Expression
...320U. S. 790 (1943), rehearing denied, 320 U. S.814 (1944).80 United States v. Dennis, 183 F. 2d 201(C.A. 2d 1950), certiorari granted, 71 S. Ct. 91(1950).David Fellman, Ph.D., Madison, Wisconsin, is Professor of political science at theUniversity of Wisconsin, and was formerly associate pr......