DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL v. AMMEX WARE., 378 U.S. 124 (1964)

U.S. Supreme Court

DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL v. AMMEX WARE., 378 U.S. 124 (1964)

378 U.S. 124

DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL FOR CALIFORNIA ET AL. v. AMMEX
WAREHOUSE CO. OF SAN YSIDRO, INC., ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA.

No. 919.
Decided June 15, 1964.

224 F. Supp. 546, affirmed.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, E. G. Funke, Assistant Attorney General and Felice R. Cutter and Warren H. Deering, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellants.

George D. Byfield for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U.S. 324.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., supra.

Page 378 U.S. 124, 125




U.S. Supreme Court

DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL v. AMMEX WARE., 378 U.S. 124 (1964)

378 U.S. 124

DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL FOR CALIFORNIA ET AL. v. AMMEX
WAREHOUSE CO. OF SAN YSIDRO, INC., ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA.

No. 919.
Decided June 15, 1964.

224 F. Supp. 546, affirmed.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, E. G. Funke, Assistant Attorney General and Felice R. Cutter and Warren H. Deering, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellants.

George D. Byfield for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U.S. 324.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., supra.

Page 378 U.S. 124, 125

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.