FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE - 364 U.S. 444 (1960)


U.S. Supreme Court

FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE, 364 U.S. 444 (1960)

364 U.S. 444

FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
No. 431.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.

Reported below: 206 Tenn. 559, 335 S. W. 2d 360.

William T. Gossett, L. Homer Surbeck and Cecil Sims for appellant.

K. Harland Dodson, Jr. for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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


DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND v. GADOL, <a href="/cases/federal/us/364/444/case.html">364 U.S. 444</a> (1960) 364 U.S. 444 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND v. GADOL, 364 U.S. 444 (1960)

364 U.S. 444

DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND ET AL. v. GADOL ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS
FOUR CORNERS PHARMACY.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 435.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 222 Md. 372, 161 A. 2d 122.

Milton M. Gottesman for appellants.

Joseph S. Kaufman and Stedman Prescott, Jr. for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 364 U.S. 444, 445






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.