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.


DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND v. GADOL, <a href="/cases/federal/us/364/444/case.html">364 U.S. 444</a> (1960) 364 U.S. 444 (1960) ">

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.

Page 364 U.S. 444, 445




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.


DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND v. GADOL, <a href="/cases/federal/us/364/444/case.html">364 U.S. 444</a> (1960) 364 U.S. 444 (1960) ">

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.

Page 364 U.S. 444, 445

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.