HODGES v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORP.
382 U.S. 160 (1965)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

HODGES v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORP., 382 U.S. 160 (1965)

382 U.S. 160

HODGES ET AL. v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORP.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT.
No. 548.
Decided November 22, 1965.

174 So.2d 565, appeal dismissed.

George C. Dayton and Joe A. McClain for appellants.

Richard W. Barrett and J. Lewis Hall for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Page 382 U.S. 160, 161


REYNOLDS METALS CO. v. WASHINGTON, <a href="/cases/federal/us/382/160/case.html">382 U.S. 160</a> (1965) 382 U.S. 160 (1965) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

REYNOLDS METALS CO. v. WASHINGTON, 382 U.S. 160 (1965)

382 U.S. 160

REYNOLDS METALS CO. v. WASHINGTON ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 537.
Decided November 22, 1965.

65 Wash. 2d 882, 400 P.2d 310, appeal dismissed.

DeWitt Williams for appellant.

John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and James A. Furber and Henry W. Wager, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.




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.