LAMBRIGHT v. CALIFORNIA
384 U.S. 434 (1966)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

LAMBRIGHT v. CALIFORNIA, 384 U.S. 434 (1966)

384 U.S. 434

LAMBRIGHT v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 1408, Misc.
Decided June 6, 1966.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

PER CURIAM.

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.

Page 384 U.S. 434, 435


DOUBLE EAGLE LUBRICANTS v. TEXAS, <a href="/cases/federal/us/384/434/case.html">384 U.S. 434</a> (1966) 384 U.S. 434 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

DOUBLE EAGLE LUBRICANTS v. TEXAS, 384 U.S. 434 (1966)

384 U.S. 434

DOUBLE EAGLE LUBRICANTS, INC. v. TEXAS.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS. No. 1177.
Decided June 6, 1966.

248 F. Supp. 515, appeal dismissed.

John B. Ogden for appellant.

Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Howard M. Fender, Lonny F. Zwiener and Robert W. Norris, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Swift & Co., Inc. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111, and Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 382 U.S. 281.




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.