SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. v. BABINEAUX
382 U.S. 16 (1965)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. v. BABINEAUX, 382 U.S. 16 (1965)

382 U.S. 16

SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. ET AL. v. BABINEAUX.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT.
No. 283.
Decided October 11, 1965.

170 So.2d 518, appeal dismissed.

Marian Mayer Berkett for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Page 382 U.S. 16, 17


BERRY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, <a href="/cases/federal/us/382/16/case.html">382 U.S. 16</a> (1965) 382 U.S. 16 (1965) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BERRY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 382 U.S. 16 (1965)

382 U.S. 16

BERRY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON.
No. 229.
Decided October 11, 1965.

241 Ore. 580, 397 P.2d 780, 399 P.2d 164, appeal dismissed.

Robert N. Gygi for appellant.

Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, and John C. Mull and Carlisle B. Roberts, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

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




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.