SENFOUR INVESTMENT CO., INC. v. KING COUNTY, 385 U.S. 1 (1966)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

SENFOUR INVESTMENT CO., INC. v. KING COUNTY, 385 U.S. 1 (1966)

385 U.S. 1

SENFOUR INVESTMENT CO., INC. v. KING COUNTY.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 93.
Decided October 10, 1966.

66 Wash. 2d 644, 404 P.2d 760, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Jerome M. Johnson for appellant.

James E. Kennedy and William L. Paul, Jr., for appellee.

Solicitor General Marshall and Philip A. Loomis, Jr., for the United States, as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and 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.

Page 385 U.S. 1, 2




U.S. Supreme Court

SENFOUR INVESTMENT CO., INC. v. KING COUNTY, 385 U.S. 1 (1966)

385 U.S. 1

SENFOUR INVESTMENT CO., INC. v. KING COUNTY.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 93.
Decided October 10, 1966.

66 Wash. 2d 644, 404 P.2d 760, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Jerome M. Johnson for appellant.

James E. Kennedy and William L. Paul, Jr., for appellee.

Solicitor General Marshall and Philip A. Loomis, Jr., for the United States, as amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and 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.

Page 385 U.S. 1, 2

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.