SULLIVAN ET AL.
v.
LITTLE HUNTING PARK, INC., ET AL.
SULLIVAN ET AL.
LITTLE HUNTING PARK, INC., ET AL.
392 U.S. 657
Supreme Court of the United States (1968)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 20 L. Ed. 2d 1346 · 88 S. Ct. 2279 · 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1167 · SCDB 1967-193
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia for further consideration in light of Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., ante, p. 409.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent for the reasons stated in Mr. Justice Harlan’s dissenting opinion in Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., ante, p. 449.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1969)…r that court’s Rule 5:1, § 3(f).1 The case came here and we granted the petition for certiorari and vacated the judgments and remanded the case to the Supreme Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Jones v. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409. 392 U. S. 657. On the remand, the Supreme Court of Appeals restated its prior position stating, “We had no jurisdiction in the cases when they were here before, and we have no jurisdiction now. We adhere to our orders refusing the appeals in these cases.” 209 Va.…
-
Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (U.S. 2008)…ts fail to appreciate the significance of § 633a(a)’s broad prohibition of “discrimination based on age.” Because Congress had good reason to expect that this broad ban would be interpreted in the same way that Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 392 U. S. 657 (1968) (per curiam), had interpreted the broad ban on racial discrimination in 42 U. S. C. § 1982, the inference that respondent asks us to draw is unfounded. To the extent there was any disagreement about whether Sullivan was really a retaliation…