Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Martin v. Walton

368 U.S. 25

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1961-12-11
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “A law, fair on its face, may be applied in a way that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
  • similar rule was rational and did not violate due process

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Martin v. Walton. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
88 opinions
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 *26 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.