McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, 379 U.S. 133 (1964)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

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




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

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.