DUNLAP v. OHIO, 375 U.S. 42 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court
DUNLAP v. OHIO, 375 U.S. 42 (1963) 375 U.S. 42 DUNLAP ET AL. v. OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 288.
Decided October 21, 1963.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Melvin Schaengold for appellants.
William S. Mathews and Calvin W. Prem for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
U.S. Supreme Court
STOVER v. NEW YORK, 375 U.S. 42 (1963) 375 U.S. 42 STOVER ET VIR v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 313.
Decided October 21, 1963.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 12 N.Y.2d 462, 191 N.E.2d 272.
Morris L. Ernst for appellants.
Anthony T. Antinozzi for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
DUNLAP v. OHIO, 375 U.S. 42 (1963) 375 U.S. 42 DUNLAP ET AL. v. OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 288.
Decided October 21, 1963.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Melvin Schaengold for appellants.
William S. Mathews and Calvin W. Prem for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
U.S. Supreme Court
STOVER v. NEW YORK, 375 U.S. 42 (1963) 375 U.S. 42 STOVER ET VIR v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 313.
Decided October 21, 1963.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 12 N.Y.2d 462, 191 N.E.2d 272.
Morris L. Ernst for appellants.
Anthony T. Antinozzi for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Page 375 U.S. 42, 43
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.
