CLAYTON v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 156 (1966)

U.S. Supreme Court

CLAYTON v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 156 (1966)

384 U.S. 156

CLAYTON, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NORTH CAROLINA. No. 893.
Decided May 2, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, Peyton B. Abbott, Deputy Attorney General, and Charles D. Barham, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Solicitor General Marshall, Acting Assistant Attorney General Roberts, I. Henry Kutz and Robert A. Bernstein for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. American Insurance Co. v. Lucas, 314 U.S. 575; Public Service Comm'n v. Brashear Lines, 306 U.S. 204.

Page 384 U.S. 156, 157

 


U.S. Supreme Court

CLAYTON v. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 156 (1966)

384 U.S. 156

CLAYTON, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NORTH CAROLINA. No. 893.
Decided May 2, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, Peyton B. Abbott, Deputy Attorney General, and Charles D. Barham, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Solicitor General Marshall, Acting Assistant Attorney General Roberts, I. Henry Kutz and Robert A. Bernstein for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. American Insurance Co. v. Lucas, 314 U.S. 575; Public Service Comm'n v. Brashear Lines, 306 U.S. 204.

Page 384 U.S. 156, 157

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.