Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Allen v. Austin
430 U.S. 924
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1977-03-21
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- concluding the new law imposed a prejudicial burden on plaintiffs partly because it required them to regenerate the support of their constituencies
- with three justices voting to hear the case on the merits
- “A mere plurality pronouncement of this type does not have the binding effect that [defendant] argues for. A trial court does not necessarily err when it does not follow a rule promulgated by only three Justices of the Supreme Court.”
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Allen v. Austin. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Authority status
- pending
- Cited by
- 24 opinions
Affirmed on appeal from D. C. E. D. Mich.
Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Powell would postpone jurisdiction to a hearing of case on the merits.