GRIFFITH v. CALIFORNIA
364 U.S. 476 (1960)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

GRIFFITH v. CALIFORNIA, 364 U.S. 476 (1960)

364 U.S. 476

GRIFFITH v. CALIFORNIA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 457.
Decided December 5, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 179 Cal. App. 2d 558, 4 Cal. Rptr. 531.

J. B. Tietz for appellant.

Robert E. Reed and R. B. Pegram for the State of California, and Roger Arneberg and Bourke Jones for the City of Los Angeles, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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


RAY v. OHIO, <a href="/cases/federal/us/364/476/case.html">364 U.S. 476</a> (1960) 364 U.S. 476 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

RAY v. OHIO, 364 U.S. 476 (1960)

364 U.S. 476

RAY v. OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 237, Misc.
Decided December 5, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 170 Ohio St. 201, 163 N. E. 2d 176.

Ralph Atkinson for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to supplement the jurisdictional statement is granted. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 364 U.S. 476, 477




Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.