FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE, 364 U.S. 444 (1960)
U.S. Supreme Court
FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE, 364 U.S. 444 (1960)
364 U.S. 444 FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
No. 431.
Decided November 21, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.
Reported below: 206 Tenn. 559, 335 S. W. 2d 360.
William T. Gossett, L. Homer Surbeck and Cecil Sims for appellant.
K. Harland Dodson, Jr. for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND v. GADOL, 364 U.S. 444 (1960)
364 U.S. 444 DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND ET AL. v. GADOL ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS
FOUR CORNERS PHARMACY.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 435.
Decided November 21, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 222 Md. 372, 161 A. 2d 122.
Milton M. Gottesman for appellants.
Joseph S. Kaufman and Stedman Prescott, Jr. for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE, 364 U.S. 444 (1960)
364 U.S. 444 FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
No. 431.
Decided November 21, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.
Reported below: 206 Tenn. 559, 335 S. W. 2d 360.
William T. Gossett, L. Homer Surbeck and Cecil Sims for appellant.
K. Harland Dodson, Jr. for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND v. GADOL, 364 U.S. 444 (1960)
364 U.S. 444 DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND ET AL. v. GADOL ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS
FOUR CORNERS PHARMACY.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 435.
Decided November 21, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 222 Md. 372, 161 A. 2d 122.
Milton M. Gottesman for appellants.
Joseph S. Kaufman and Stedman Prescott, Jr. for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
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.
