STADLER v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA, 380 U.S. 252 (1965)

U.S. Supreme Court

STADLER v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA, 380 U.S. 252 (1965)

380 U.S. 252

STADLER ET AL., EXECUTORS v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 797.
Decided March 8, 1965.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below. 227 Cal. App. 2d 314, 38 Cal. Rptr. 587.

Theodore W. Russell and R. Y. Schureman for appellants.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufman, Assistant Attorney General, and Neal J. Gobar, Deputy 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 380 U.S. 252, 253

 


U.S. Supreme Court

STADLER v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA, 380 U.S. 252 (1965)

380 U.S. 252

STADLER ET AL., EXECUTORS v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 797.
Decided March 8, 1965.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below. 227 Cal. App. 2d 314, 38 Cal. Rptr. 587.

Theodore W. Russell and R. Y. Schureman for appellants.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufman, Assistant Attorney General, and Neal J. Gobar, Deputy 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 380 U.S. 252, 253

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.