Supreme Court of the United States, 1932

Ex parte James

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided November 7, 1932

287 U.S. 572; 53 S. Ct. 114; 77 L. Ed. 503; 1932 U.S. LEXIS 59 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Messrs. John Randolph Neal and Henry Nathan Camp, Jr., for petitioner. Messrs. J. J. Lynch, James A. Fowler, and J. H. Frantz for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Alderson, State Tax Com'r (Supreme Court of the United States 1945)
Cullen v. Ellis County Levee Improvement Dist. No. 3 (Tex. App. 1934)
Fryer v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. (Mo. 1933)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Upon consideration of the return of the re*573spondent to the rule to show cause heretofore issued in this matter, it is ordered that the motion of the petitioner for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to require the respondent to call to his assistance two other federal judges, in the manner provided by § 380, title 28, U. S. Code, to hear and determine the applications for interlocutory and final injunction in a cause entitled Charles Clay James v. Horace Frierson, jr., et ah, be, and the same is hereby, denied, in view of the fact that it would be entirely impracticable to convene the specially constituted District Court and to procure a hearing in time to make any decree effective prior to the general election.

Messrs. John Randolph Neal and Henry Nathan Camp, Jr., for petitioner. Messrs. J. J. Lynch, James A. Fowler, and J. H. Frantz for respondent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.