SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v. TOOMEY, 375 U.S. 9 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court
SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v. TOOMEY, 375 U.S. 9 (1963) 375 U.S. 9SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v.
TOOMEY, TAX ASSESSOR.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.
No. 188.
Decided October 14, 1963.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: See ___ R. I. ___, 188 A.2d 91.
Frederick Bernays Wiener and Gerald W. Harrington for appellant.
Charles S. Rhyne and Alfred J. Tighe, Jr. for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
375 U.S. 9 (1963) 375 U.S. 9 (1963) ">
U.S. Supreme Court
BREWER v. NORTH CAROLINA, 375 U.S. 9 (1963) 375 U.S. 9BREWER ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 291.
Decided October 14, 1963.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 258 N.C. 533, 129 S.E.2d 262.
Malcolm B. Seawell and William T. Hatch for appellants.
Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v. TOOMEY, 375 U.S. 9 (1963) 375 U.S. 9 SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v. TOOMEY, TAX ASSESSOR.APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.
No. 188.
Decided October 14, 1963.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: See ___ R. I. ___, 188 A.2d 91. Frederick Bernays Wiener and Gerald W. Harrington for appellant. Charles S. Rhyne and Alfred J. Tighe, Jr. for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
375 U.S. 9 (1963) 375 U.S. 9 (1963) ">
U.S. Supreme Court
BREWER v. NORTH CAROLINA, 375 U.S. 9 (1963) 375 U.S. 9 BREWER ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA.APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 291.
Decided October 14, 1963.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 258 N.C. 533, 129 S.E.2d 262. Malcolm B. Seawell and William T. Hatch for appellants. Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy 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 375 U.S. 9, 10
