CALIFORNIA COMPANY v. COLORADO, 364 U.S. 285 (1960)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
CALIFORNIA COMPANY v. COLORADO, 364 U.S. 285 (1960) 364 U.S. 285CALIFORNIA COMPANY v. COLORADO ET
AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.
No. 86.
Decided October 10, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 141 Colo. 288, 348 P.2d 382.
John P. Akolt, V. P. Cline and Francis R. Kirkham for appellant.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and Fred M. Winner and Carl W. Berueffy, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, for appellees.
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 COLORADO.
No. 86.
Decided October 10, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 141 Colo. 288, 348 P.2d 382. John P. Akolt, V. P. Cline and Francis R. Kirkham for appellant. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and Fred M. Winner and Carl W. Berueffy, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Page 364 U.S. 285, 286
U.S. Supreme Court
CALIFORNIA COMPANY v. COLORADO, 364 U.S. 285 (1960) 364 U.S. 285 CALIFORNIA COMPANY v. COLORADO ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.
No. 86.
Decided October 10, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 141 Colo. 288, 348 P.2d 382. John P. Akolt, V. P. Cline and Francis R. Kirkham for appellant. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and Fred M. Winner and Carl W. Berueffy, Special Assistants to the Attorney General, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Page 364 U.S. 285, 286
Search This Case
