LAMAR BATH HOUSE CO. v. CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, 359 U.S. 534 (1959)

U.S. Supreme Court

LAMAR BATH HOUSE CO. v. CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, 359 U.S. 534 (1959)

359 U.S. 534

LAMAR BATH HOUSE CO. ET AL. v. CITY OF HOT SPRINGS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. 791.
Decided May 25, 1959.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 229 Ark. 214, 315 S. W. 2d 884.

William M. Clark and Richard C. Butler for appellants.

James W. Chesnutt for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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


CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RR. v. ILLINOIS, <a href="/cases/federal/us/359/534/case.html">359 U.S. 534</a> (1959) 359 U.S. 534 (1959) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RR. v. ILLINOIS, 359 U.S. 534 (1959)

359 U.S. 534

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. ILLINOIS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS. No. 793.
Decided May 25, 1959.

168 F. Supp. 706, affirmed.

Edwin R. Eckersall and R. K. Merrill for appellant.

Latham Castle, Attorney General of Illinois, and Harry R. Begley, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Illinois and the Illinois Commerce Commission, and S. Ashley Guthrie and Francis D. Fisher for the Milwaukee Road Commuters' Association, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 359 U.S. 534, 535




U.S. Supreme Court

LAMAR BATH HOUSE CO. v. CITY OF HOT SPRINGS, 359 U.S. 534 (1959)

359 U.S. 534

LAMAR BATH HOUSE CO. ET AL. v. CITY OF HOT SPRINGS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
No. 791.
Decided May 25, 1959.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 229 Ark. 214, 315 S. W. 2d 884.

William M. Clark and Richard C. Butler for appellants.

James W. Chesnutt for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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


CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RR. v. ILLINOIS, <a href="/cases/federal/us/359/534/case.html">359 U.S. 534</a> (1959) 359 U.S. 534 (1959) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RR. v. ILLINOIS, 359 U.S. 534 (1959)

359 U.S. 534

CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. v. ILLINOIS ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS. No. 793.
Decided May 25, 1959.

168 F. Supp. 706, affirmed.

Edwin R. Eckersall and R. K. Merrill for appellant.

Latham Castle, Attorney General of Illinois, and Harry R. Begley, Special Assistant Attorney General, for the State of Illinois and the Illinois Commerce Commission, and S. Ashley Guthrie and Francis D. Fisher for the Milwaukee Road Commuters' Association, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 359 U.S. 534, 535

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.