MILLER v. CITY OF CHICAGO
375 U.S. 11 (1963)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

MILLER v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 375 U.S. 11 (1963)

375 U.S. 11

MILLER ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 260.
Decided October 14, 1963.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 27 Ill. 2d 211, 188 N. E. 2d 694.

Harry G. Fins and Favil David Berns for appellants.

John C. Melaniphy and Sydney R. Drebin for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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


BUTLER v. DUNBAR, <a href="/cases/federal/us/375/11/case.html">375 U.S. 11</a> (1963) 375 U.S. 11 (1963) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BUTLER v. DUNBAR, 375 U.S. 11 (1963)

375 U.S. 11

BUTLER v. DUNBAR, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 244.
Decided October 14, 1963.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 59 Cal. 2d 157, 378 P.2d 812.

J. Perry Langford for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Gordon Ringer, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

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

Page 375 U.S. 11, 12

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.