Howard v. Ohio, 391 U.S. 360 (1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Howard v. Ohio, 391 U.S. 360 (1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
80 citation events across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Koen v. Long (moed, 1969-08-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Koen v. Long (2×)
E.D. Mo. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally, Brooks v. Briley, 274 F.Supp. 538 , aff'd 391 U.S. 361 , 88 S.Ct. 1671 , 20 L.Ed.2d 647 .
discussed Cited "see" Vick v. Schiro (2×)
E.D. La. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See per curiam affirmance, 391 U.S. 361 , 88 S.Ct. 1671 , 20 L.Ed.2d 647 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." J. L. Leflore v. James Robinson (2×)
5th Cir. · 1970 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Brooks v. Briley, M.D.Tenn. 1967, 274 F.Supp. 538, 553 (three-judge court) (Section 2283 “cannot be avoided by seeking a declaratory judgment”) (alternative holding), aff’d per curiam on other grounds, 1968, 391 U.S. 361 , 88 S.Ct. 1671 , 20 L.Ed.2d 647 . .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Mike Honey and Martha Allen v. Jon Goodman, Shelby M. Howard, and J. W. Shines (4×)
6th Cir. · 1970 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, e. g., Brooks v. Briley, 274 F.Supp. 538 (M.D.Tenn.1967) (three-judge court), aff'd per curiam, 391 U.S. 361 , 88 S.Ct. 1671 , 20 L.Ed.2d 647 (1968) (holding that section 2283 bars not only federal injunctions against pending state court proceedings, but also declaratory judgments); Armstrong v. Ellington, 312 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Tenn. 1970) (three-judge court) (holding that section 1983 is not an "express exception" to section 2283); with, Baker v. Bindner, 274 F.Supp. 658 (W.D.Ky. 1967) (three-judge court) (holding that section 1983 is an "express exception" to section 2283).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HOWARD
v.
OHIO
No. 1217.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 20, 1968.
391 U.S. 360
Neil K. Evans for appellant., John T. Comgan for appellee.
Douglas, Noted, Should.
Published
Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.