HC&D MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., v. YAMANE, 383 U.S. 104 (1966)

U.S. Supreme Court

HC&D MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., v. YAMANE, 383 U.S. 104 (1966)

383 U.S. 104

HC&D MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., ET AL. v. YAMANE, STATE TAX COLLECTOR.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII.
No. 855.
Decided February 21, 1966.

48 Haw. 486, 405 P.2d 382, appeal dismissed.

J. Garner Anthony for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 383 U.S. 104, 105


NOLAN v. RHODES, <a href="/cases/federal/us/383/104/case.html">383 U.S. 104</a> (1966) 383 U.S. 104 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

NOLAN v. RHODES, 383 U.S. 104 (1966)

383 U.S. 104

NOLAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 836.
Decided February 21, 1966.

251 F. Supp. 584, affirmed.

Kenneth G. Weinberg and Stewart R. Jaffy for appellant.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.




U.S. Supreme Court

HC&D MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., v. YAMANE, 383 U.S. 104 (1966)

383 U.S. 104

HC&D MOVING & STORAGE CO., INC., ET AL. v. YAMANE, STATE TAX COLLECTOR.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF HAWAII.
No. 855.
Decided February 21, 1966.

48 Haw. 486, 405 P.2d 382, appeal dismissed.

J. Garner Anthony for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 383 U.S. 104, 105


NOLAN v. RHODES, <a href="/cases/federal/us/383/104/case.html">383 U.S. 104</a> (1966) 383 U.S. 104 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

NOLAN v. RHODES, 383 U.S. 104 (1966)

383 U.S. 104

NOLAN v. RHODES, GOVERNOR OF OHIO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 836.
Decided February 21, 1966.

251 F. Supp. 584, affirmed.

Kenneth G. Weinberg and Stewart R. Jaffy for appellant.

William B. Saxbe, Attorney General of Ohio, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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.