Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

368 U.S. 346

Bailey v. Patterson

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1961-12-18

Relies on Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Douglas v. City of Jeannette · Federal Land Bank of Wichita v. Board of County Commissioners

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Petition denied / appeal dismissed · 9–0 · Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1961-12-18

How this case has been cited

Cited by 626 later decisions (57 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2013 · most notably Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera (1966), Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York (1978)

177 federal appellate · 78 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 11 states

2310196119701980199020002010decided

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 →

Constance Baker Motley, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and R. Jess Brown, for movants.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen. of Mississippi, Charles Clark and Peter M. Stockett, Special Asst. Attys. Gen., and Dugas Shands and Edward L. Cates, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents Patterson and others.

Thomas H. Watkins, for respondents City of Jackson and others.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Harold H. Greene and Howard A. Glickstein, for the United States, as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

This is a motion for an injunction to stay the prosecution of a number of criminal cases in the courts of Mississippi pending an appeal to this Court from the judgment of a three-judge Federal District Court. 199 F.Supp. 595. A federal injunction to stay state criminal proceedings is an extraordinary remedy. Cf. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 63 S.Ct. 877, 87 L.Ed. 1324; Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714. In addition to the considerations normally attending an application for such relief, a serious question of standing is presented on this motion, in that it appears that the movants themselves are not being prosecuted in the Mississippi courts. On the record before us the motion for a stay injunction pending appeal is denied.

¶2

Motion denied.

¶3

Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER concur in the denial of a stay solely on the ground that the three movants are the themselves being prosecuted or threatened with prosecutions in Mississippi and they therefore reach no other questions.

/368/us/346 · .json · Public domain