Supreme Court of the United States, 1947

Colegrove v. Barrett

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 10, 1947

330 U.S. 804; 67 S. Ct. 973; 91 L. Ed. 1262; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2556 (United States Reports)

Counsel

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

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Baker v. Carr (Supreme Court of the United States 1962)
W. M. C. A., Inc. v. Simon (District Court, S.D. New York 1962)
Scholle v. Secretary of State (Mich. 1960)
South v. Peters (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1950)
Harris v. Anderson (Kan. 1965)
Bush v. Martin (District Court, S.D. Texas 1964)
Davis v. Synhorst (District Court, S.D. Iowa 1963)
Scholle v. Secretary of State (Mich. 1962)
Delozier v. Tyrone Area School Board (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1965)
Reynolds v. Sims (Supreme Court of the United States 1964)
Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes, Governor & Board of State Canvassers (Md. 1962)
WMCA, Inc. v. Simon (District Court, S.D. New York 1961)
W.M.C.A. Inc. v. Simon (District Court, S.D. New York 1961)
Baker v. Carr (District Court, M.D. Tennessee 1959)
MacDougall v. Green (Supreme Court of the United States 1948)
Jaquith v. Simon (New York Supreme Court 1962)

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

Per Curiam:

The 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.

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