GEER, EXECUTOR, v. BOWERS, 371 U.S. 36 (1962)
Subscribe to Cases that cite EXECUTOR, v. BOWERS, 371 U.S. 36
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/371/36/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/371/36/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
GEER, EXECUTOR, v. BOWERS, 371 U.S. 36 (1962)
371 U.S. 36 GEER, EXECUTOR, ET AL. v. BOWERS, TAX COMMISSIONER OF OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 304.
Decided October 22, 1962.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Reported below: 173 Ohio St. 264, 181 N. E. 2d 268.
H. Herschel Hunt for appellants.
Mark McElroy, Attorney General of Ohio, and Theodore R. Saker and Joseph L. White, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
U.S. Supreme Court
CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 371 U.S. 36 (1962)
371 U.S. 36 CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS CO. ET AL. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 307.
Decided October 22, 1962.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 57 Cal. 2d 515, 370 P.2d 342.
Howard C. Westwood for appellants.
Roger Arnebergh and Bourke Jones for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.