GRIFFING v. BIANCHI, 382 U.S. 15 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court
GRIFFING v. BIANCHI, 382 U.S. 15 (1965) 382 U.S. 15GRIFFING ET AL., CONSTITUTING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW
YORK v. BIANCHI ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 206.
Decided October 11, 1965.
238 F. Supp. 997, appeal dismissed.
Stanley S. Corwin, Joseph L. Nellis and Allen A. Sperling for appellants.
Richard C. Cahn for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
U.S. Supreme Court
JONES v. McFADDIN, 382 U.S. 15 (1965) 382 U.S. 15 JONES ET AL. v. McFADDIN ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF TEXAS, SIXTH SUPREME JUDICIAL
DISTRICT. No. 226.
Decided October 11, 1965.
382 S.W.2d 277, appeal dismissed.
William Blum, Jr., for appellants.
George A. Weller, Ewell Strong and Major T. Bell for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
U.S. Supreme Court
GRIFFING v. BIANCHI, 382 U.S. 15 (1965) 382 U.S. 15GRIFFING ET AL., CONSTITUTING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW
YORK v. BIANCHI ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 206.
Decided October 11, 1965.
238 F. Supp. 997, appeal dismissed.
Stanley S. Corwin, Joseph L. Nellis and Allen A. Sperling for appellants.
Richard C. Cahn for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
U.S. Supreme Court
JONES v. McFADDIN, 382 U.S. 15 (1965) 382 U.S. 15 JONES ET AL. v. McFADDIN ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF TEXAS, SIXTH SUPREME JUDICIAL
DISTRICT. No. 226.
Decided October 11, 1965.
382 S.W.2d 277, appeal dismissed.
William Blum, Jr., for appellants.
George A. Weller, Ewell Strong and Major T. Bell for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Page 382 U.S. 15, 16
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.
