WINTERS v. WASHINGTON, 384 U.S. 208 (1966)

U.S. Supreme Court

WINTERS v. WASHINGTON, 384 U.S. 208 (1966)

384 U.S. 208

WINTERS v. WASHINGTON.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 1143.
Decided May 16, 1966.

67 Wash. 2d 465, 407 P.2d 988, appeal dismissed.

George R. Mosler for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 384 U.S. 208, 209


BARRIOS v. FLORIDA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/384/208/case.html">384 U.S. 208</a> (1966) 384 U.S. 208 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BARRIOS v. FLORIDA, 384 U.S. 208 (1966)

384 U.S. 208

BARRIOS ET AL. v. FLORIDA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
No. 722.
Decided May 16, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

Leonard B. Boudin, Victor Rabinowitz, Tobias Simon and Michael B. Standard for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and Edward D. Cowart, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Solicitor General Marshall filed a memorandum for the United States, as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.




U.S. Supreme Court

WINTERS v. WASHINGTON, 384 U.S. 208 (1966)

384 U.S. 208

WINTERS v. WASHINGTON.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 1143.
Decided May 16, 1966.

67 Wash. 2d 465, 407 P.2d 988, appeal dismissed.

George R. Mosler for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 384 U.S. 208, 209


BARRIOS v. FLORIDA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/384/208/case.html">384 U.S. 208</a> (1966) 384 U.S. 208 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BARRIOS v. FLORIDA, 384 U.S. 208 (1966)

384 U.S. 208

BARRIOS ET AL. v. FLORIDA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
No. 722.
Decided May 16, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

Leonard B. Boudin, Victor Rabinowitz, Tobias Simon and Michael B. Standard for appellants.

Earl Faircloth, Attorney General of Florida, and Edward D. Cowart, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Solicitor General Marshall filed a memorandum for the United States, as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

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.