NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE, 385 U.S. 450 (1967)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 385 U.S. 450
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/385/450/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/385/450/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE, 385 U.S. 450 (1967)
385 U.S. 450 NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 767.
Decided January 9, 1967.
68 Wash. 2d 72,î 415 P.2d 93, appeal dismissed.
Footnotes
[Footnote î] ERRATA: "72" in "68 Wash. 2d 72" should be "721".Appellant pro se.
A. L. Newbould 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
KIRKPATRICK v. PREISLER, 385 U.S. 450 (1967)
385 U.S. 450 KIRKPATRICK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL. v. PREISLER ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI. No. 738.
Decided January 9, 1967.
257 F. Supp. 953, affirmed.
Norman H. Anderson, Attorney General of Missouri, and J. Gordon Siddens and Thomas J. Downey, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants.
Paul W. Preisler, pro se, and for other appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.