HATHAWAY v. TEXAS, 373 U.S. 540 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court
HATHAWAY v. TEXAS, 373 U.S. 540 (1963) 373 U.S. 540 HATHAWAY v. TEXAS.
APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF COOKE COUNTY, TEXAS.
No. 532.
Decided May 27, 1963.
Judgment reversed on representations of counsel for appellee.
David B. Buerger for appellant.
Norman V. Suarez, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is reversed on the representations of counsel for the appellee. West Point Wholesale Grocery Co. v. City of Opelika, Alabama, 354 U.S. 390.
U.S. Supreme Court
YALE TRANSPORT CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 373 U.S. 540 (1963) 373 U.S. 540 YALE TRANSPORT CORP. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK. No. 936.
Decided May 27, 1963.
210 F. Supp. 862, affirmed.
Herbert Burstein for appellant.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Robert B. Hummel, Robert W. Ginnane, James Y. Piper and Fritz R. Kahn for the United States et al.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court
HATHAWAY v. TEXAS, 373 U.S. 540 (1963) 373 U.S. 540 HATHAWAY v. TEXAS.
APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF COOKE COUNTY, TEXAS.
No. 532.
Decided May 27, 1963.
Judgment reversed on representations of counsel for appellee.
David B. Buerger for appellant.
Norman V. Suarez, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is reversed on the representations of counsel for the appellee. West Point Wholesale Grocery Co. v. City of Opelika, Alabama, 354 U.S. 390.
U.S. Supreme Court
YALE TRANSPORT CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 373 U.S. 540 (1963) 373 U.S. 540 YALE TRANSPORT CORP. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK. No. 936.
Decided May 27, 1963.
210 F. Supp. 862, affirmed.
Herbert Burstein for appellant.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Robert B. Hummel, Robert W. Ginnane, James Y. Piper and Fritz R. Kahn for the United States et al.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Page 373 U.S. 540, 541
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.
