MITCHELL BROS. TRUCK LINES v. UNITED STATES, 378 U.S. 125 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
MITCHELL BROS. TRUCK LINES v. UNITED STATES, 378 U.S. 125 (1964) 378 U.S. 125MITCHELL BROS. TRUCK LINES v. UNITED
STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
OREGON.
No. 993.
Decided June 15, 1964.
225 F. Supp. 755, affirmed.
William F. White for appellant.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel, Robert W. Ginnane, Francis A. Silver and Betty Jo Christian for the United States et al.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
378 U.S. 125 (1964) 378 U.S. 125 (1964) ">
U.S. Supreme Court
DUNNE LEASES CARS & TRUCKS, INC. v. LUSSIER, 378 U.S. 125 (1964) 378 U.S. 125DUNNE LEASES CARS & TRUCKS, INC., v. LUSSIER, REGISTRAR OF
MOTOR VEHICLES
FOR RHODE ISLAND.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE COUNTY.
No. 1029.
Decided June 15, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: See ___ R. I. ___, 196 A.2d 728.
Abraham Belilove and Samuel J. Kolodney for appellant.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
MITCHELL BROS. TRUCK LINES v. UNITED STATES, 378 U.S. 125 (1964) 378 U.S. 125 MITCHELL BROS. TRUCK LINES v. UNITED STATES ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.
No. 993.
Decided June 15, 1964.
225 F. Supp. 755, affirmed. William F. White for appellant. Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel, Robert W. Ginnane, Francis A. Silver and Betty Jo Christian for the United States et al. PER CURIAM. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
378 U.S. 125 (1964) 378 U.S. 125 (1964) ">
U.S. Supreme Court
DUNNE LEASES CARS & TRUCKS, INC. v. LUSSIER, 378 U.S. 125 (1964) 378 U.S. 125 DUNNE LEASES CARS & TRUCKS, INC., v. LUSSIER, REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLESFOR RHODE ISLAND.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND, PROVIDENCE COUNTY. No. 1029.
Decided June 15, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: See ___ R. I. ___, 196 A.2d 728. Abraham Belilove and Samuel J. Kolodney for appellant. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Page 378 U.S. 125, 126