Martin v. Walton

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 368 U.S. 25, 7 L. Ed. 2d 5, 82 S. Ct. 1, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 194, SCDB 1961-002

Decision Date: 11/6/1961

Docket Number: No. 30

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Martin v. Walton, 368 U.S. 25, 7 L. Ed. 2d 5, 82 S. Ct. 1, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 194, SCDB 1961-002 (1961)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1961

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 47 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s

Courts citing this case

Kan.8

4th Cir.5

7th Cir.3

Alaska2

Ark.2

N.C.2

Most recently cited by10

2014Thayer v. City of Worcester 1st Cir.
2006Morrison v. Board of Law Examiners 4th Cir.
2001St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Marina Bay Resort Condominium Assoc., Inc. Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1998Allied Colloids, Inc v. Jadair, Incorporated 4th Cir.
1994Scariano v. Justices of the Supreme Court S.D. Ind.
1985Goldfarb v. Supreme Court of Virginia 4th Cir.
1985State v. Moore Kan.
1984Salibra v. Supreme Court of Ohio 6th Cir.
1984Burriss v. Northern Assurance Co. of America Kan.
1984In re Frazier E.D. La.

Cites 7 cases

Graves v. Minnesota
Dent v. West Virginia
Hitchcock v. Collenberg
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners
Kovrak v. Ginsburg
Martin v. Davis
Phelps v. Board of Education

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

MARTIN v. WALTON, PROBATE JUDGE OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS.

Judges

The Chief Justice concurs in the result.
Mb. Justice Whittaker took no part in the disposition of this case.
with whom Mr. Justice Black concurs,

Attorneys

Howard E. Payne argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were F. L. Hagaman and John Seurlock.
J. Donald Lysaught argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Hugh H. Kreamer, Bernhard W. Alden and Kenneth C. McGuiness.
A brief was filed by William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and A. K. Stavely, Assistant Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Kansas, as amicus curiae.

majority Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Upon plenary consideration, we are satisfied that, both on their face and as applied to appellant, Kan. Gen. Stat., 1949, § 7-104, and amended Kan. Sup. Ct. Rules 41 and 54 promulgated by the Supreme Court of Kansas, acting within its competence under state law, are not beyond the allowable range of state action under the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U. S. 425; Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232, 239; Hitchcock v. Collenberg, 353 U. S. 919; Kovrak v. Ginsburg, 358 U. S. 52. We cannot disregard the reasons given by the Kansas Supreme Court for the Rules in question. 187 Kan. 473, 357 P. 2d 782. Nor does the fact that the Rules may result in “incidental individual inequality” make them offensive to the Fourteenth Amendment. Phelps v. Board of Education, 300 U. S. 319, 324.

The Chief Justice concurs in the result.

Mb. Justice Whittaker took no part in the disposition of this case.