SCHACKMAN v. CALIFORNIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

SCHACKMAN v. CALIFORNIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964) 379 U.S. 3

SCHACKMAN ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES. No. 105.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Burton Marks for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh, Philip E. Grey and Wm. E. Doran for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/379/3/case.html">379 U.S. 3</a> (1964) 379 U.S. 3 (1964) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964) 379 U.S. 3

BATTISTA ET AL., TRADING AS NOR-VIEW FARM v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF
PENNSYLVANIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 295.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 413 Pa. 652, 198 A. 2d 840.

Frederick A. Ballard for appellants.

Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Anthony W. Novasitis, Jr., Assistant Attorney 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. 3, 4




U.S. Supreme Court

SCHACKMAN v. CALIFORNIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964) 379 U.S. 3

SCHACKMAN ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES. No. 105.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Burton Marks for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh, Philip E. Grey and Wm. E. Doran for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/379/3/case.html">379 U.S. 3</a> (1964) 379 U.S. 3 (1964) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964) 379 U.S. 3

BATTISTA ET AL., TRADING AS NOR-VIEW FARM v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF
PENNSYLVANIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 295.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 413 Pa. 652, 198 A. 2d 840.

Frederick A. Ballard for appellants.

Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Anthony W. Novasitis, Jr., Assistant Attorney 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. 3, 4

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.