ANDERSON v. BALL, 368 U.S. 18 (1961)

U.S. Supreme Court

ANDERSON v. BALL, 368 U.S. 18 (1961)

368 U.S. 18

ANDERSON ET AL. v. BALL, COUNTY TREASURER.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 326.
Decided October 23, 1961.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 21 Ill. 2d 396, 172 N. E. 2d 760.

Charles R. Holton for appellants.

Guy R. Williams for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 368 U.S. 18, 19


TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND, <a href="/cases/federal/us/368/18/case.html">368 U.S. 18</a> (1961) 368 U.S. 18 (1961) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND, 368 U.S. 18 (1961)

368 U.S. 18

TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 315.
Decided October 23, 1961.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 202 Va. 707, 119 S. E. 2d 488.

Martin A. Martin, Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Charles L. Black, Jr. for appellant.

J. E. Drinard for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.




U.S. Supreme Court

ANDERSON v. BALL, 368 U.S. 18 (1961)

368 U.S. 18

ANDERSON ET AL. v. BALL, COUNTY TREASURER.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 326.
Decided October 23, 1961.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 21 Ill. 2d 396, 172 N. E. 2d 760.

Charles R. Holton for appellants.

Guy R. Williams for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 368 U.S. 18, 19


TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND, <a href="/cases/federal/us/368/18/case.html">368 U.S. 18</a> (1961) 368 U.S. 18 (1961) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND, 368 U.S. 18 (1961)

368 U.S. 18

TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 315.
Decided October 23, 1961.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 202 Va. 707, 119 S. E. 2d 488.

Martin A. Martin, Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Charles L. Black, Jr. for appellant.

J. E. Drinard for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

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.