METROMEDIA, INC. v. CITY OF PASADENA, 376 U.S. 186 (1964)
Subscribe to Cases that cite INC. v. CITY OF PASADENA, 376 U.S. 186
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/376/186/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/376/186/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
METROMEDIA, INC. v. CITY OF PASADENA, 376 U.S. 186 (1964)
376 U.S. 186 METROMEDIA, INC., ET AL. v. CITY OF PASADENA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 659.
Decided February 17, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 216 Cal. App. 2d 270, 30 Cal. Rptr. 731.
Charles Seligson, William French Smith and Paul E. Iverson for appellants.
Charles S. Rhyne for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
ARLAN'S DEPARTMENT STORE OF LOUISVILLE v. KENTUCKY, 376 U.S. 186 (1964)
376 U.S. 186 ARLAN'S DEPARTMENT STORE OF LOUISVILLE, INC., v. KENTUCKY.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY.
No. 665.
Decided February 17, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 369 S. W. 2d 9.
James E. Thornberry for appellant.
Robert Matthews, Attorney General of Kentucky, and Robert L. Montague III and Holland N. McTyeire, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.