Colegrove v. Barrett

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 10, 1947.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1947-03-10

1 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. * * *"”

quoted by 1 later decision, including W. M. C. A., Inc. v. Simon

Relies on Colegrove v. Green · Cook v. Fortson · Colegrove v. Green

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1947-03-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1993

4 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Urban A. Lavery for appellants. George F. Barrett, Attorney General of Illinois, and William C. Wines, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

¶2Per Curiam:

¶3The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. In view of the Court's refusal to grant rehearing in Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549, rehearing denied, 329 U. S. 825, 828, and its dismissal of the appeals in Cook v. Fortson and Turman v. Duckworth, 329 U. S. 675, rehearing denied, 329 U. S. 829, Mr. Justice Rutledge concurs in the dismissal of this appeal. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Douglas, and Mr. Justice Murphy are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.