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

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.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.