GREENWALD v. MARYLAND, 363 U.S. 719 (1960)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

GREENWALD v. MARYLAND, 363 U.S. 719 (1960) 363 U.S. 719

GREENWALD v. MARYLAND.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 859.
Decided June 20, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 221 Md. 235, 155 A. 2d 894.

Harry Silbert, A. Jerome Diener and Sidney Schlachman for appellant.

C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General of Maryland, Stedman Prescott, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and James H. Norris, Jr., Special 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.

ANDERSON v. THORINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., <a href="/cases/federal/us/363/719/case.html">363 U.S. 719</a> (1960) 363 U.S. 719 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

ANDERSON v. THORINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., 363 U.S. 719 (1960) 363 U.S. 719

ANDERSON v. THORINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 878.
Decided June 20, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question.

Reported below: 201 Va. 266, 110 S. E. 2d 396.

George E. Allen and Seymour I. Toll for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question.

Page 363 U.S. 719, 720




U.S. Supreme Court

GREENWALD v. MARYLAND, 363 U.S. 719 (1960) 363 U.S. 719

GREENWALD v. MARYLAND.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 859.
Decided June 20, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 221 Md. 235, 155 A. 2d 894.

Harry Silbert, A. Jerome Diener and Sidney Schlachman for appellant.

C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General of Maryland, Stedman Prescott, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and James H. Norris, Jr., Special 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.

ANDERSON v. THORINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., <a href="/cases/federal/us/363/719/case.html">363 U.S. 719</a> (1960) 363 U.S. 719 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

ANDERSON v. THORINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., 363 U.S. 719 (1960) 363 U.S. 719

ANDERSON v. THORINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 878.
Decided June 20, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question.

Reported below: 201 Va. 266, 110 S. E. 2d 396.

George E. Allen and Seymour I. Toll for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question.

Page 363 U.S. 719, 720

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.