Supreme Court of the United States, 1966

Baines v. City of Danville

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided April 25, 1966 · Douglas, Brennan, Fortas, Peacock

384 U.S. 890; 86 S. Ct. 1915; 16 L. Ed. 2d 996; 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1141 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Arthur Kinoy, William M. Kunstler and J. L. Williams for petitioners., Rutledge C. Clement for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

State of North Carolina v. Reginald A. Hawkins (4th Cir. 1966)
Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America (9th Cir. 2008)
Negrete v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (9th Cir. 2008)
Peter Vlaming v. West Point School Board (4th Cir. 2021)
Southwest Airlines Company v. Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Texas Aeronautics Commission, Intervenor-Appellee (5th Cir. 1977)
Hartsville Theatres, Inc. v. Fox (District Court, D. South Carolina 1971)
Frinks v. North Carolina (District Court, E.D. North Carolina 1971)
Thomas Carlton Wansley v. Commonwealth of Virginia, (Three Cases) (4th Cir. 1966)
Vlaming v. West Point School Board (District Court, E.D. Virginia 2020)
Lee v. Winston (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1982)
Delavigne v. Delavigne (District Court, D. Maryland 1975)
Housing Authority of Newark v. Henry (District Court, D. New Jersey 1971)
De Vita v. Sills (3d Cir. 1970)
McGhee v. Commonwealth (Va. 1970)
Rollins v. Commonwealth (Va. 1970)
De Vita v. Sills (3d Cir. 1970)
Tidmore v. City of Birmingham (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 1969)
Nichols v. Vance (District Court, S.D. Texas 1968)
California v. Stewart (Supreme Court of the United States 1966)

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.

The motions to dispense with printing the petition for a writ of certiorari and the respondent’s brief are granted. The petition for writ of certiorari is also granted and the judgments are affirmed. City of Greenwood v. Peacock, ante, p. 808.

The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Fortas would reverse the judgments for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in City of Greenwood v. Peacock, ante, at 835.

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