HINKLE v. NEW ENGLAND INS. CO., 358 U.S. 65 (1958)

U.S. Supreme Court

HINKLE v. NEW ENGLAND INS. CO., 358 U.S. 65 (1958)

358 U.S. 65

HINKLE, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL. v. NEW ENGLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 28.
Argued October 15, 1958.
Decided November 10, 1958.

Writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

Reported below: 248 F.2d 879.

Leland S. Forrest argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.

Phineas M. Henry argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Vincent V. R. Booth.

PER CURIAM.

The writ of certiorari in this case is dismissed as improvidently granted. See Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, 261 U.S. 387; Estate of Spiegel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 335 U.S. 701, 707-708; General Box Co. v. United States, 351 U.S. 159, 165.

Page 358 U.S. 65, 66

 


U.S. Supreme Court

HINKLE v. NEW ENGLAND INS. CO., 358 U.S. 65 (1958)

358 U.S. 65

HINKLE, ADMINISTRATRIX, ET AL. v. NEW ENGLAND MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 28.
Argued October 15, 1958.
Decided November 10, 1958.

Writ of certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

Reported below: 248 F.2d 879.

Leland S. Forrest argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners.

Phineas M. Henry argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Vincent V. R. Booth.

PER CURIAM.

The writ of certiorari in this case is dismissed as improvidently granted. See Layne & Bowler Corp. v. Western Well Works, 261 U.S. 387; Estate of Spiegel v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 335 U.S. 701, 707-708; General Box Co. v. United States, 351 U.S. 159, 165.

Page 358 U.S. 65, 66

Oral Argument - October 15, 1958
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

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.