1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 561 F.2d
  5. 561 F.2d 1351 (1977)
 

BROMLEY v. CRISP

Nos. 75-1593, 75-1830, 76-1043, 76-1044 and 76-1988.

561 F.2d 1351 (1977)

Louis Jay BROMLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard CRISP, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester, Oklahoma, Respondent-Appellee. David Lee GARNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent-Appellee. Gary Michael RUTLEDGE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jerry SUNDERLAND, Warden, Oklahoma State Reformatory, Respondent-Appellee. Billie Jay KILLION, and Delmar Eugene Hanley, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Dave FAULKNER, Sheriff, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, Respondent-Appellee. Derek Lee WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Dave FAULKNER, Sheriff, Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, Respondent-Appellee. William Lynn STRINGFIELD, Petitioner-Appellee, v. John GRIDER, Warden, Oklahoma State Reformatory, Granite, Oklahoma, et al., Respondents-Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Decided April 12, 1977.

Rehearing Denied September 2, 1977.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Fred P. Gilbert, Tulsa, Okl., for petitioners-appellants in Nos. 75-1593, 75-1830, 75-1968, 76-1043, 76-1044, and for petitioner-appellee in No. 75-1988 (Andrew T. Dalton, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., on the brief).

Kay Karen Kennedy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Okl. (Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for respondents-appellees in Nos. 75-1593, 75-1830, 75-1968, 76-1043, 76-1044, and for respondents-appellants in No. 75-1988.

Mary E. Bane, of Bane & Williams, Oklahoma City, Okl., for petitioner-appellant in No. 75-1968.

Marvin E. Spears, Asst. Dist. Atty., Tulsa, Okl. (S. M. Fallis, Jr., Dist. Atty., Tulsa, Okl., on the briefs), for respondent-appellee, Faulkner, in Nos. 76-1043 and 76-1044.

Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, HILL, SETH, HOLLOWAY, McWILLIAMS, BARRETT and DOYLE, Circuit Judges.

HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge.

These habeas suits present various questions arising from the unconstitutionality of Oklahoma juvenile code provisions which have been held invalid due to a sex-based discriminatory provision allowing male youths 16 and 17 years of age to be prosecuted as adults under the State criminal laws while requiring that females of those ages be treated under the juvenile code of Oklahoma unless first certified to stand trial as adults. See 10 O.S...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases