RHOADES v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP
389 U.S. 11 (1967)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

RHOADES v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, 389 U.S. 11 (1967)

389 U.S. 11

RHOADES ET AL. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 225.
Decided October 9, 1967.

424 Pa. 202, 226 A. 2d 53, appeal dismissed.

Franklin C. Salisbury for appellants.

William C. Sennett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, John P. McCord, Deputy Attorney General, and Edward Friedman for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and William B. Ball for Paul et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

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


HOHENSEE v. MINEAR, <a href="/cases/federal/us/389/11/case.html">389 U.S. 11</a> (1967) 389 U.S. 11 (1967) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

HOHENSEE v. MINEAR, 389 U.S. 11 (1967)

389 U.S. 11

HOHENSEE ET AL. v. MINEAR.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 190, Misc.
Decided October 9, 1967.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Jo V. Morgan, Jr., 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 389 U.S. 11, 12




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.