CAROLINA AMUSEMENT CO. ET AL.
v.
MARTIN, SHERIFF, ET AL.

U.S. | 1961-06-19
No. 424
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
367 U.S. 904 Supreme Court of the United States (1961) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …et than a surname. In South Carolina the penal aspect of the statute does not require an interpretation so rigid as to strip its wording of its plain connotation. Carolina Amusement Co. v. Martin, 236 S.C. 558, 115 S.E. 2d 273 (1960), cert, denied, 367 U.S. 904, 81 S.Ct. 1914, 6 L.Ed.2d 1248 (1961); State v. Firemen’s Ins. Co., 164 S.C. 313, 162 S.E. 334 (1931). This is certainly sound construction when, as here, the statute is only employed to provide civil redress. McKenzie v. Peoples Baking Co., 205 S.C…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw