SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v. TOOMEY, 375 U.S. 9 (1963)
Subscribe to Cases that cite INC., v. TOOMEY, 375 U.S. 9
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/375/9/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/375/9/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v. TOOMEY, 375 U.S. 9 (1963)
375 U.S. 9 SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v. TOOMEY, TAX ASSESSOR.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.
No. 188.
Decided October 14, 1963.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: See ___ R. I. ___, 188 A. 2d 91.
Frederick Bernays Wiener and Gerald W. Harrington for appellant.
Charles S. Rhyne and Alfred J. Tighe, Jr. for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
BREWER v. NORTH CAROLINA, 375 U.S. 9 (1963)
375 U.S. 9 BREWER ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 291.
Decided October 14, 1963.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 258 N.C. 533, 129 S. E. 2d 262.
Malcolm B. Seawell and William T. Hatch for appellants.
Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.