LAMAR BATH HOUSE CO. v. CITY OF HOT SPRINGS
359 U.S. 534 (1959)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

LAMAR BATH HOUSE CO. v. CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, 359 U.S. 534 (1959)

359 U.S. 534

LAMAR BATH HOUSE CO. ET AL. v. CITY OF HOT SPRINGS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. 791.
Decided May 25, 1959.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 229 Ark. 214, 315 S. W. 2d 884.

William M. Clark and Richard C. Butler for appellants.

James W. Chesnutt for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RR. v. ILLINOIS, <a href="/cases/federal/us/359/534/case.html">359 U.S. 534</a> (1959) 359 U.S. 534 (1959) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RR. v. ILLINOIS, 359 U.S. 534 (1959)

359 U.S. 534

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. ILLINOIS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS. No. 793.
Decided May 25, 1959.

168 F. Supp. 706, affirmed.

Edwin R. Eckersall and R. K. Merrill for appellant.

Latham Castle, Attorney General of Illinois, and Harry R. Begley, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Illinois and the Illinois Commerce Commission, and S. Ashley Guthrie and Francis D. Fisher for the Milwaukee Road Commuters' Association, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 359 U.S. 534, 535




Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.