LINDER v. COLLINS, 358 U.S. 44 (1958)
U.S. Supreme Court
LINDER v. COLLINS, 358 U.S. 44 (1958)
358 U.S. 44 LINDER v. COLLINS ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF WALLACE COUNTY, KANSAS, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. No. 86.
Decided October 13, 1958.
Affirmed.
Jesse I. Linder, John J. Yowell and G. Kent Yowell for appellant.
James E. Taylor and Verne M. Laing for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. v. BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE, 358 U.S. 44 (1958)
358 U.S. 44 PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. v. BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY.
No. 179.
Decided October 13, 1958.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 26 N. J. 197, 139 A. 2d 97.
Windsor F. Cousins and Hugh B. Cox for appellant.
David D. Furman, Attorney General of New Jersey, Joseph T. Karcher and Samuel V. Convery for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
LINDER v. COLLINS, 358 U.S. 44 (1958)
358 U.S. 44 LINDER v. COLLINS ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF WALLACE COUNTY, KANSAS, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. No. 86.
Decided October 13, 1958.
Affirmed.
Jesse I. Linder, John J. Yowell and G. Kent Yowell for appellant.
James E. Taylor and Verne M. Laing for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court
PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. v. BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE, 358 U.S. 44 (1958)
358 U.S. 44 PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. v. BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY.
No. 179.
Decided October 13, 1958.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 26 N. J. 197, 139 A. 2d 97.
Windsor F. Cousins and Hugh B. Cox for appellant.
David D. Furman, Attorney General of New Jersey, Joseph T. Karcher and Samuel V. Convery for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
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.
