MALONEY v. HOLDEN, 379 U.S. 6 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
MALONEY v. HOLDEN, 379 U.S. 6 (1964) 379 U.S. 6 MALONEY v. HOLDEN, JUDGE.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 225, Misc.
Decided October 12, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
COOPER-JARRETT, v. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 6 (1964) 379 U.S. 6 COOPER-JARRETT, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI. No. 159.
Decided October 12, 1964.
226 F. Supp. 318, affirmed.
Kenneth E. Midgley, Thomas J. Hogan, Bryce Rea, Jr., Roland Rice, Homer S. Carpenter and John S. Fessenden for appellants.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al.; and Carl E. Enggas, D. Robert Thomas, John F. Donelan, Nuel D. Belnap, Harvey Huston, John A. Daily, Paul R. Duke and John M. Cleary for Eastern Railroads et al., appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
U.S. Supreme Court
MALONEY v. HOLDEN, 379 U.S. 6 (1964) 379 U.S. 6 MALONEY v. HOLDEN, JUDGE.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 225, Misc.
Decided October 12, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Page 379 U.S. 6, 7
U.S. Supreme Court
COOPER-JARRETT, v. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 6 (1964) 379 U.S. 6 COOPER-JARRETT, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI. No. 159.
Decided October 12, 1964.
226 F. Supp. 318, affirmed.
Kenneth E. Midgley, Thomas J. Hogan, Bryce Rea, Jr., Roland Rice, Homer S. Carpenter and John S. Fessenden for appellants.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al.; and Carl E. Enggas, D. Robert Thomas, John F. Donelan, Nuel D. Belnap, Harvey Huston, John A. Daily, Paul R. Duke and John M. Cleary for Eastern Railroads et al., appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
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.
