BONTZ v. KANSAS, 377 U.S. 162 (1964)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
BONTZ v. KANSAS, 377 U.S. 162 (1964) 377 U.S. 162BONTZ v. KANSAS.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 758.
Decided May 4, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 192 Kan. 158, 163, 386 P.2d 201, 205.
Verne M. Laing for appellant.
William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and Keith Sanborn for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 758.
Decided May 4, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 192 Kan. 158, 163, 386 P.2d 201, 205. Verne M. Laing for appellant. William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and Keith Sanborn for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 377 U.S. 162, 163
U.S. Supreme Court
BONTZ v. KANSAS, 377 U.S. 162 (1964) 377 U.S. 162 BONTZ v. KANSAS.APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 758.
Decided May 4, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 192 Kan. 158, 163, 386 P.2d 201, 205. Verne M. Laing for appellant. William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and Keith Sanborn for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 377 U.S. 162, 163
Search This Case
