McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, 379 U.S. 133 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, 379 U.S. 133 (1964)
379 U.S. 133 McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 472.
Decided November 23, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 61 Cal. 2d 186, 390 P.2d 412.
Walter L. Nossaman for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufmann, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest P. Goodman and Harry W. Low, Deputy Attorneys General, 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
McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, 379 U.S. 133 (1964)
379 U.S. 133 McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 472.
Decided November 23, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 61 Cal. 2d 186, 390 P.2d 412.
Walter L. Nossaman for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufmann, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest P. Goodman and Harry W. Low, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Page 379 U.S. 133, 134
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.