TIETZ v. MARIENTHAL
385 U.S. 8 (1966)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

TIETZ v. MARIENTHAL, 385 U.S. 8 (1966)

385 U.S. 8

TIETZ ET AL. v. MARIENTHAL ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 217.
Decided October 10, 1966.

238 Cal. App. 2d 905, 48 Cal. Rptr. 245, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

J. B. Tietz for appellants.

Harold W. Kennedy and Henry F. Walker for appellees.

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.


REYNOLDS v. LA. BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, <a href="/cases/federal/us/385/8/case.html">385 U.S. 8</a> (1966) 385 U.S. 8 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

REYNOLDS v. LA. BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, 385 U.S. 8 (1966)

385 U.S. 8

REYNOLDS, DBA LARRY & KATZ, ET AL. v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. No. 229.
Decided October 10, 1966.

248 La. 639, 181 So.2d 377, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Saul Stone and Paul O. H. Pigman for appellants.

George A. Bourgeois, Clem H. Sehrt and Peter J. Butler 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.

Page 385 U.S. 8, 9




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.