Supreme Court of the United States, 1962

Paul v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 15, 1962 · Black, Concerning, Convening, Erroneous, None, Propriety, Raised, Since, Would

368 U.S. 965; 7 L. Ed. 2d 394; 82 S. Ct. 437; 1962 U.S. LEXIS 2018 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Walter S. Rountree, Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence E. Doxsee and John Fourt, Deputy Attorneys General, and Roger Kent for appellants. Solicitor General Cox for the United States. Briefs of amici curiae in support of appellants were filed for the State of Virginia by Frederick T. Gray, Attorney General, and M. Harris Parker, Assistant Attorney General; for the State of Montana by Forrest H. Anderson, Attorney General, and Geoffrey L. Brazier, Special Assistant Attorney General; for the State of Maine by Frank E. Hancock, Attorney General, and Thomas W. Tavenner, Assistant Attorney General; for the State of Mississippi et al. by Joe T. Patterson, Attorney General, and John L. Hatcher; for the State of Nevada by Roger D. Foley, Attorney General, and Joseph J. Kay, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General; for the State of North Carolina by T. Wade Bruton, Attorney General; for the State of Oregon by Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General; for the State of Louisiana by Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General; for Consolidated Milk Producers of San Francisco, Inc., by Gerald D. Marcus; for the Dairy Institute of California et al. by Thomas G. Baggot and Jesse E. Baskette; and for Peta-luma Cooperative Creamery by Joseph A. Rattigan.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Paul v. Allied Dairymen, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)
Polar Ice Cream & Creamery Co. v. Andrews (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 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

*965Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is postponed until a hearing of the case on the merits. Counsel are requested to brief and argue, in addition to the merits, the question of this Court's jurisdiction on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1253; see 28 U. S. C. § 2281.

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas would note jurisdiction since none of the parties has raised the question concerning the propriety of convening a three-judge court in this case and since the convening of a three-judge court was not palpably erroneous.

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