SMITH v. WARDEN, 381 U.S. 411 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. WARDEN, 381 U.S. 411 (1965) 381 U.S. 411 SMITH v. WARDEN, CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, HARTFORD COUNTY.
No. 934, Misc.
Decided June 1, 1965.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
PER CURIAM.
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
WARD v. NEW YORK, 381 U.S. 411 (1965) 381 U.S. 411 WARD v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 1158, Misc.
Decided June 1, 1965.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
PER CURIAM.
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
SMITH v. WARDEN, 381 U.S. 411 (1965) 381 U.S. 411 SMITH v. WARDEN, CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, HARTFORD COUNTY.
No. 934, Misc.
Decided June 1, 1965.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
PER CURIAM.
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
WARD v. NEW YORK, 381 U.S. 411 (1965) 381 U.S. 411 WARD v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 1158, Misc.
Decided June 1, 1965.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
PER CURIAM.
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.
Page 381 U.S. 411, 412
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.
