SCOTT v. PENNSYLVANIA
374 U.S. 95 (1963)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTT v. PENNSYLVANIA, 374 U.S. 95 (1963)

374 U.S. 95

SCOTT v. PENNSYLVANIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 1003, Misc.
Decided June 10, 1963.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Appellant pro se.

Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and George G. Lindsay, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 374 U.S. 95, 96


SLOAN'S MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., v. UNITED STATES, <a href="/cases/federal/us/374/95/case.html">374 U.S. 95</a> (1963) 374 U.S. 95 (1963) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

SLOAN'S MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., v. UNITED STATES, 374 U.S. 95 (1963)

374 U.S. 95

SLOAN'S MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI. No. 880.
Decided June 10, 1963.

208 F. Supp. 567, affirmed.

Herbert Burstein for appellant.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Robert B. Hummel, Robert W. Ginnane and H. Neil Garson for the United States and the Interstate Commerce Commission; and Bernard G. Segal, Richmond C. Coburn, S. Harrison Kahn, Irving R. Segal and Robert L. Kendall, Jr. for United Parcel Service, Inc., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

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.