Baxter v. City of Philadelphia, 389 U.S. 573 (1968). · Go Syfert
Search
Baxter v. City of Philadelphia, 389 U.S. 573 (1968). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Scott v. Fairbanks Capital Corp. (ohsd, 2003-08-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968 1997 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Scott v. Fairbanks Capital Corp.
S.D. Ohio · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See James v. Gilmore, 389 U.S. 572 , 88 S.Ct. 695 , 19 L.Ed.2d 783 (1968).
cited Cited "see" Baughman v. Freienmuth
D. Maryland · 1970 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gilmore v. James, 274 F.Supp. 75 (N.D.Texas) (three-judge court), aff’d, 389 U.S. 572 , 88 S.Ct. 695 , 19 L.Ed.2d 783 (1968).
discussed Cited "see" Passel v. Fort Worth Independent School District (2×)
Tex. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gilmore v. James, 274 F.Supp. 75 (D.C.Tex.) aff’d 389 U.S. 572 , 88 S.Ct. 695 , 19 L.Ed.2d 783 , reh. den. 390 U.S. 975 , 88 S.Ct. 1027 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1195 (1968).
discussed Cited "see" Exon v. Tiemann (2×)
D. Neb. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See 389 U.S. 574 , 88 S.Ct. 695 , 19 L.Ed.2d 784 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Metropolitan Area Housing Alliance v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development
N.D. Ill. · 1976 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Gilmore v. James, 274 F.Supp. 75, 87 (N.D.Tex.1967) (3 Judge Ct.), affirmed, 389 U.S. 572 , 88 S.Ct. 695 , 19 L.Ed.2d 783 (1968) (per curiam); Eskra v. Morton, 524 F.2d 9, 10 (7th Cir. 1975), rev’g on other grounds, 380 F.Supp. 205 (E.D.Wis.1974); Sullivan v. Houston Independent School District, 307 F.Supp. 1328, 1337-38 (S.D.Tex.1969).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
BAXTER
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
No. 858.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 15, 1968.
389 U.S. 573
Jacob J. Kilimnik for appellants., Frank J. Pfizenmayer and Levy Anderson for appellees.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.