Case Name: MARTIN v. WALTON, PROBATE JUDGE OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1961-11-06
Citations: 368 U.S. 25
Docket Number: No. 30
Parties: MARTIN v. WALTON, PROBATE JUDGE OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS.
Judges: The Chief Justice concurs in the result.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 368
Pages: 25–29

Head Matter:
MARTIN v. WALTON, PROBATE JUDGE OF JOHNSON COUNTY, KANSAS.
No. 30.
Argued October 17, 1961.
Decided November 6, 1961.
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.

Opinion:
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.