SOUTHERN PACIFIC v. CORPORATION COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, 359 U.S. 532 (1959)

U.S. Supreme Court

SOUTHERN PACIFIC v. CORPORATION COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, 359 U.S. 532 (1959)

359 U.S. 532

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. CORPORATION COMMISSION OF ARIZONA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.
No. 763.
Decided May 25, 1959.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 84 Ariz. 365, 329 P.2d 883.

George L. Buland, Burton Mason and Randolph Karr for appellant.

Wade Church, Attorney General of Arizona, Wm. S. Andrews, Assistant Attorney General, and Stanley W. Trachta for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


RODGERS v. UTAH, <a href="/cases/federal/us/359/532/case.html">359 U.S. 532</a> (1959) 359 U.S. 532 (1959) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

RODGERS v. UTAH, 359 U.S. 532 (1959)

359 U.S. 532

RODGERS v. UTAH.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH.
No. 695, Misc.
Decided May 25, 1959.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 8 Utah 2d 156, 329 P.2d 1075.

Lewis J. Wallace for appellant.

E. R. Callister, Attorney General of Utah, and Raymond W. Gee, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 359 U.S. 532, 533




U.S. Supreme Court

SOUTHERN PACIFIC v. CORPORATION COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, 359 U.S. 532 (1959)

359 U.S. 532

SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. CORPORATION COMMISSION OF ARIZONA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.
No. 763.
Decided May 25, 1959.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 84 Ariz. 365, 329 P.2d 883.

George L. Buland, Burton Mason and Randolph Karr for appellant.

Wade Church, Attorney General of Arizona, Wm. S. Andrews, Assistant Attorney General, and Stanley W. Trachta for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


RODGERS v. UTAH, <a href="/cases/federal/us/359/532/case.html">359 U.S. 532</a> (1959) 359 U.S. 532 (1959) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

RODGERS v. UTAH, 359 U.S. 532 (1959)

359 U.S. 532

RODGERS v. UTAH.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF UTAH.
No. 695, Misc.
Decided May 25, 1959.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 8 Utah 2d 156, 329 P.2d 1075.

Lewis J. Wallace for appellant.

E. R. Callister, Attorney General of Utah, and Raymond W. Gee, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 359 U.S. 532, 533

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.