HELM v. ARIZONA, 362 U.S. 609 (1960)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
HELM v. ARIZONA, 362 U.S. 609 (1960) 362 U.S. 609HELM ET AL. v. ARIZONA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.
No. 768.
Decided May 16, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 86 Ariz. 275, 345 P.2d 202.
Irving A. Jennings for appellants.
Wade Church, Attorney General of Arizona, Leslie C. Hardy, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Jay Dushoff, 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.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.
No. 768.
Decided May 16, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 86 Ariz. 275, 345 P.2d 202. Irving A. Jennings for appellants. Wade Church, Attorney General of Arizona, Leslie C. Hardy, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Jay Dushoff, 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 362 U.S. 609, 610
U.S. Supreme Court
HELM v. ARIZONA, 362 U.S. 609 (1960) 362 U.S. 609 HELM ET AL. v. ARIZONA.APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.
No. 768.
Decided May 16, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 86 Ariz. 275, 345 P.2d 202. Irving A. Jennings for appellants. Wade Church, Attorney General of Arizona, Leslie C. Hardy, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Jay Dushoff, 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 362 U.S. 609, 610
Search This Case
