WAHLGREN v. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL COMPANY, 292 U.S. 639 (1934)
U.S. Supreme Court
WAHLGREN v. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL COMPANY, 292 U.S. 639 (1934)
292 U.S. 639
Roy M. WAHLGREN, petitioner,
v.
BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL COMPANY, et al.*
No. 942.
Supreme Court of the United States
May 7, 1934
Mr. Roy M. Wahlgren, pro se.
For opinion below, see 66 F.(2d) 660.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied, for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the papers herein submitted, finds no ground upon which a writ of certiorari should be granted. The petition for writ of certiorari is, therefore, also denied.
* Rehearing denied 292 U.S. 615, 54 S. Ct. 862, 78 L. Ed. --.[ Wahlgren v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Company 292 U.S. 639 (1934) ]
U.S. Supreme Court
WAHLGREN v. BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL COMPANY, 292 U.S. 639 (1934)
Roy M. WAHLGREN, petitioner,
v.
BAUSCH & LOMB OPTICAL COMPANY, et al.*
No. 942.
Supreme Court of the United States
May 7, 1934
Mr. Roy M. Wahlgren, pro se.
For opinion below, see 66 F.(2d) 660.
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied, for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the papers herein submitted, finds no ground upon which a writ of certiorari should be granted. The petition for writ of certiorari is, therefore, also denied.
* Rehearing denied 292 U.S. 615, 54 S. Ct. 862, 78 L. Ed. --.[ Wahlgren v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Company 292 U.S. 639 (1934) ]
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.