Sullivan v. United States

Decision Date13 January 1969
Docket NumberNo. 610,610
Citation21 L.Ed.2d 558,89 S.Ct. 617,393 U.S. 1012
PartiesJohn L. SULLIVAN, Tax Commissioner of the State of Connecticut, et al., appellants, v. UNITED STATES et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen. of Connecticut, and F. Michael Ahern, Ralph G. Murphy and Richard A. Gitlin, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.

Solicitor General Griswold, for the United States.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Willard W. Livingston, for the State of Alabama, as amicus curiae.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., and Aurel M. Kelly, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Colorado, as amicus curiae.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., and William L. Harper, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Georgia, as amicus curiae.

John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., and William F. Riley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Kentucky, as amicus curiae.

James S. Erwin, Atty. Gen., and John R. Doyle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Maine, as amicus curiae.

Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Jon. F. Oster, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Maryland, as amicus curiae.

Elliot L. Richardson, Atty. Gen., and Alan J. Dimond, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Massachusetts, as amicus curiae.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., and Maurice Barbour, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Michigan, as amicus curiae.

Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., for the State of Minnesota, as amicus curiae.

Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., and Walter W. Nowotny, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Missouri, as amicus curiae.

Ralph H. Gillan, Atty. Gen., for the State of Nebraska, as amicus curiae.

Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., for the State of Nevada, as amicus curiae.

Thomas Wade Bruton, Atty. Gen., and Robert L. Gunn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of North Carolina, as amicus curiae.

William C. Sennett, Atty. Gen., and Edward T. Baker, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State of Pennsylvania, as amicus curiae.

Crawford C. Martin, Atty. Gen. of Texas, Nola White, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Kerns B. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A. J. Carubbi, Jr., Executive Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Texas, as amicus curiae.

Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., and M. Harris Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State of Virginia, as amicus curiae.

James Barrett, Atty. Gen., for the State of Wyoming, as amicus curiae.

It this case probable jurisdiction noted and case placed on the summary calendar.

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Honey v. Goodman
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • October 9, 1970
    ...580, 1968 Term; renumbered No. 11, 1969 Term); Harris v. Younger, 281 F.Supp. 507 (C.D.Cal. 1968), prob. juris. noted, 393 U.S. 1013, 89 S.Ct. 611, 21 L.Ed.2d 558 (1969) (No. 163, 1968 Term; renumbered No. 4, 1969 Term); Landry v. Daley, 288 F. Supp. 200 (N.D.Ill.), prob. juris. noted, Boyl......
  • LeFlore v. Robinson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • November 12, 1970
    ...393 U.S. 975, 89 S.Ct. 453, 21 L.Ed.2d 437; Harris v. Younger, C.D.Cal.1968, 281 F. Supp. 507, prob. juris. noted, 1969, 393 U.S. 1013, 89 S.Ct. 611, 21 L.Ed.2d 558. Since no prosecutions are currently pending under Section 14-11 of the Mobile ordinances, there is no question about the avai......
  • Baxter v. Ellington
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • October 6, 1970
    ...of the case or controversy issue. In Harris v. Younger, 281 F.Supp. 507 (C.D.Cal., 1968), probable jurisdiction noted 393 U.S. 1013, 89 S.Ct. 611, 21 L.Ed.2d 558, reargument ordered 399 U.S. 922, 90 S.Ct. 2227, 26 L.Ed.2d 788 (1970), four plaintiffs attacked California's Criminal Syndicalis......
  • Strasser v. Doorley, 7635.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • October 9, 1970
    ...393 U.S. 975, 89 S.Ct. 453, 21 L. Ed.2d 437; Harris v. Younger, C.D.Cal., 1968, 281 F.Supp. 507, prob. juris. noted, 393 U.S. 1013, 89 S.Ct. 611, 21 L.Ed. 2d 558. Our hesitancy is reinforced by our belief that vindication of plaintiffs' rights does not require making defendants the subject ......
  • 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