SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. v. BABINEAUX, 382 U.S. 16 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court
SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. v. BABINEAUX, 382 U.S. 16 (1965) 382 U.S. 16 SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. ET AL. v. BABINEAUX.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT.
No. 283.
Decided October 11, 1965.
170 So. 2d 518, appeal dismissed.
Marian Mayer Berkett for appellants.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
U.S. Supreme Court
BERRY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 382 U.S. 16 (1965) 382 U.S. 16 BERRY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON.
No. 229.
Decided October 11, 1965.
241 Ore. 580, 397 P.2d 780, 399 P.2d 164, appeal dismissed.
Robert N. Gygi for appellant.
Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, and John C. Mull and Carlisle B. Roberts, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
U.S. Supreme Court
SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. v. BABINEAUX, 382 U.S. 16 (1965) 382 U.S. 16 SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. ET AL. v. BABINEAUX.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT.
No. 283.
Decided October 11, 1965.
170 So. 2d 518, appeal dismissed.
Marian Mayer Berkett for appellants.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Page 382 U.S. 16, 17
U.S. Supreme Court
BERRY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 382 U.S. 16 (1965) 382 U.S. 16 BERRY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON.
No. 229.
Decided October 11, 1965.
241 Ore. 580, 397 P.2d 780, 399 P.2d 164, appeal dismissed.
Robert N. Gygi for appellant.
Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, and John C. Mull and Carlisle B. Roberts, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
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.
