Supreme Court of the United States, 1961

Bailey v. Patterson

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided December 18, 1961 · Black, Mississippi

368 U.S. 346; 82 S. Ct. 282; 7 L. Ed. 2d 332; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 4 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Constance Baker Motley, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and R. Jess Brown for movants., Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, Charles Clark and Peter M. Stockett, Special Assistant Attorneys General, and Dugas Shands and Edward L. Cates, Assistant Attorneys General, for Patterson et al., and Thomas H. Watkins for the City of Jackson et al., respondents., Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Marshall, Harold H. Greene and Howard A. Glickstein filed a memorandum for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of the motion.

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

United Steelworkers of America v. Bagwell (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 1965)
Bailey v. Patterson (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1962)
Chaffee v. Johnson (District Court, S.D. Mississippi 1964)
Anderson v. Kelly (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia 1963)
Graddick, Attorney General of Alabama v. Newman Et Al. (Supreme Court of the United States 1981)
Holt Civic Club, Etc. v. City of Tuscaloosa, Etc. (5th Cir. 1975)
Perez v. Lavine (District Court, S.D. New York 1974)
Stuart v. Heard (District Court, S.D. Texas 1973)
Stefan Ray Aronow v. United States of America (9th Cir. 1970)
Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson (Supreme Court of the United States 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

Per Curiam.

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. A federal injunction to stay state criminal proceedings is an extraordinary remedy. Cf. Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123. In addition to the considerations normally attending an application for such relief, a serious question of standing is presented on this *347 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.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Frankfurter concur in the denial of a stay solely on the ground that the three movants are not themselves being prosecuted or threatened with prosecutions in Mississippi and they therefore reach no other questions.

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