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

Syllabus

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


383 U.S. 104 (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.

 



Opinions

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


383 U.S. 104 (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.