BENNETT v. COUNTY OF DADE, 379 U.S. 8 (1964)

U.S. Supreme Court

BENNETT v. COUNTY OF DADE, 379 U.S. 8 (1964) 379 U.S. 8

BENNETT v. COUNTY OF DADE, FLORIDA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
No. 275, Misc.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 379 U.S. 8, 9

YORTY v. JORDAN, <a href="/cases/federal/us/379/8/">379 U.S. 8</a> (1964) 379 U.S. 8 (1964) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

YORTY v. JORDAN, 379 U.S. 8 (1964) 379 U.S. 8

YORTY ET AL. v. JORDAN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 250.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Roger Arnebergh, Bourke Jones and James A. Doherty for appellants.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Charles E. Corker and Charles A. Barrett, Assistant Attorneys General, and Sanford N. Gruskin, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

 


U.S. Supreme Court

BENNETT v. COUNTY OF DADE, 379 U.S. 8 (1964) 379 U.S. 8

BENNETT v. COUNTY OF DADE, FLORIDA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
No. 275, Misc.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 379 U.S. 8, 9

YORTY v. JORDAN, <a href="/cases/federal/us/379/8/"><a class="related-case" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/8/"><a class="related-case" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/8/">379 U.S. 8</a></a></a> (1964) 379 U.S. 8 (1964) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

YORTY v. JORDAN, 379 U.S. 8 (1964) 379 U.S. 8

YORTY ET AL. v. JORDAN, SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 250.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Roger Arnebergh, Bourke Jones and James A. Doherty for appellants.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Charles E. Corker and Charles A. Barrett, Assistant Attorneys General, and Sanford N. Gruskin, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

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.