LANZA v. NEW JERSEY, 375 U.S. 451 (1964)

U.S. Supreme Court

LANZA v. NEW JERSEY, 375 U.S. 451 (1964) 375 U.S. 451

LANZA ET AL. v. NEW JERSEY.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY.
No. 560.
Decided January 20, 1964.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 39 N. J. 595, 190 A. 2d 374.

Jacob Green for appellants.

Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Bernard Hellring 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 writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


ARONOFF v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/375/451/case.html">375 U.S. 451</a> (1964) 375 U.S. 451 (1964) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

ARONOFF v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, 375 U.S. 451 (1964) 375 U.S. 451

ARONOFF ET AL. v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 639.
Decided January 20, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 60 Cal. 2d 177, 383 P.2d 409.

Thomas W. LeSage for appellants.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufmann, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest P. Goodman, Deputy Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 375 U.S. 451, 452




U.S. Supreme Court

LANZA v. NEW JERSEY, 375 U.S. 451 (1964) 375 U.S. 451

LANZA ET AL. v. NEW JERSEY.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY.
No. 560.
Decided January 20, 1964.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 39 N. J. 595, 190 A. 2d 374.

Jacob Green for appellants.

Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Bernard Hellring 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 writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


ARONOFF v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/375/451/case.html">375 U.S. 451</a> (1964) 375 U.S. 451 (1964) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

ARONOFF v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, 375 U.S. 451 (1964) 375 U.S. 451

ARONOFF ET AL. v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 639.
Decided January 20, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 60 Cal. 2d 177, 383 P.2d 409.

Thomas W. LeSage for appellants.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufmann, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest P. Goodman, Deputy Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 375 U.S. 451, 452

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.