Schackman v. Arnebergh

May 29, 1967.

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1967-05-29

Relies on Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein · Federal Trade Commission v. Universal-Rundle Corp. · Buchanan v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1967-05-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 201 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009 · most notably Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin (1992), Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union (1974)

143 federal appellate · 3 district · 15 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 →

-Burton Marks, for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh, pro se, Bourke Jones and Robert B. Burns, for appellees Arnebergh and others.

Harold W. Kennedy, George Wakefield and Martin E. Weekes, for appellees Younger and others.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, pro se, and A. Barry Cappello, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee Lynch.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Appellants seek review by this Court of the refusal by the District Court to convene a three-judge District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281—2284. We have held that such review is available in the Court of Appeals, Idlewild Bon oy age Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713, 82 S.Ct. 1294, 8 L.Ed.2d 794, and not in this Court. Buchanan v. Rhodes, 385 U.S. 3, 87 S.Ct. 33, 17 L.Ed.2d 3.

¶2

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

¶3

Motion granted.