CAPELOUTO v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., 385 U.S. 11 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court
CAPELOUTO v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., 385 U.S. 11 (1966) 385 U.S. 11 CAPELOUTO v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO. OF FLORIDA, INC.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
No. 316.
Decided October 10, 1966.
183 So. 2d 532, appeal dismissed.
Wilfred C. Varn for appellant.
J. Lewis Hall for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
MASLOWSKY v. CASSIDY, 385 U.S. 11 (1966) 385 U.S. 11 MASLOWSKY ET AL. v. CASSIDY, CHAIRMAN, ILLINOIS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMISSION, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. No. 574.
Decided October 10, 1966.
34 Ill. 2d 456, 216 N.E.2d 669, appeal dismissed.
Albert E. Jenner, Jr., and Thomas P. Sullivan for appellants.
Owen Rall for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
U.S. Supreme Court
CAPELOUTO v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., 385 U.S. 11 (1966) 385 U.S. 11 CAPELOUTO v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO. OF FLORIDA, INC.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
No. 316.
Decided October 10, 1966.
183 So. 2d 532, appeal dismissed.
Wilfred C. Varn for appellant.
J. Lewis Hall for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
MASLOWSKY v. CASSIDY, 385 U.S. 11 (1966) 385 U.S. 11 MASLOWSKY ET AL. v. CASSIDY, CHAIRMAN, ILLINOIS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMISSION, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. No. 574.
Decided October 10, 1966.
34 Ill. 2d 456, 216 N.E.2d 669, appeal dismissed.
Albert E. Jenner, Jr., and Thomas P. Sullivan for appellants.
Owen Rall for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Page 385 U.S. 11, 12
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.
