VENABLE v. TEXAS, 384 U.S. 266 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court
VENABLE v. TEXAS, 384 U.S. 266 (1966)
384 U.S. 266 VENABLE v. TEXAS.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS.
No. 1196.
Decided May 23, 1966.
397 S. W. 2d 231, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
William VanDercreek for appellant.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
U.S. Supreme Court
WYLAN v. CALIFORNIA, 384 U.S. 266 (1966)
384 U.S. 266 WYLAN v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. No. 991.
Decided May 23, 1966.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Ronald H. Bonaparte and David A. Binder for appellant.
Byron B. Gentry for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
U.S. Supreme Court
VENABLE v. TEXAS, 384 U.S. 266 (1966)
384 U.S. 266 VENABLE v. TEXAS.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS.
No. 1196.
Decided May 23, 1966.
397 S. W. 2d 231, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
William VanDercreek for appellant.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
U.S. Supreme Court
WYLAN v. CALIFORNIA, 384 U.S. 266 (1966)
384 U.S. 266 WYLAN v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. No. 991.
Decided May 23, 1966.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Ronald H. Bonaparte and David A. Binder for appellant.
Byron B. Gentry for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are 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.
