ROBERTOY v. MICHIGAN, 364 U.S. 519 (1960)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
ROBERTOY v. MICHIGAN, 364 U.S. 519 (1960) 364 U.S. 519ROBERTOY v. MICHIGAN.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.
No. 308, Misc.
Decided December 19, 1960.
Appeal dismissed since the judgment below is based on a nonfederal ground adequate to support it.
Petitioner pro se.
Paul L. Adams, Attorney General of Michigan, and Samuel J. Torina, Solicitor General, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for the reason that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan, sought here to be reviewed, is based upon a nonfederal ground adequate to support it.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.
No. 308, Misc.
Decided December 19, 1960.
Appeal dismissed since the judgment below is based on a nonfederal ground adequate to support it. Petitioner pro se. Paul L. Adams, Attorney General of Michigan, and Samuel J. Torina, Solicitor General, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for the reason that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan, sought here to be reviewed, is based upon a nonfederal ground adequate to support it. Page 364 U.S. 519, 520
U.S. Supreme Court
ROBERTOY v. MICHIGAN, 364 U.S. 519 (1960) 364 U.S. 519 ROBERTOY v. MICHIGAN.APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.
No. 308, Misc.
Decided December 19, 1960.
Appeal dismissed since the judgment below is based on a nonfederal ground adequate to support it. Petitioner pro se. Paul L. Adams, Attorney General of Michigan, and Samuel J. Torina, Solicitor General, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for the reason that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan, sought here to be reviewed, is based upon a nonfederal ground adequate to support it. Page 364 U.S. 519, 520
Search This Case
