BADGLEY v. HARE, 385 U.S. 114 (1966)

U.S. Supreme Court

BADGLEY v. HARE, 385 U.S. 114 (1966) 385 U.S. 114

BADGLEY ET AL. v. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.
No. 505.
Decided November 21, 1966.

376 Mich. 410, 137 N.W.2d 495, 138 N. W. 2d 16; 377 Mich. 396, 140 N.W.2d 436, appeal dismissed.

William T. Gossett for appellants.

Frank J. Kelly, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Curtis G. Beck, Assistant Attorney General, for Hare; Theodore Sachs for Scholle et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/385/114/case.html">385 U.S. 114</a> (1966) 385 U.S. 114 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA, 385 U.S. 114 (1966) 385 U.S. 114

BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 271, Misc.
Decided November 21, 1966.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Appellant pro se.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack K. Weber, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

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. 114, 115

 


U.S. Supreme Court

BADGLEY v. HARE, 385 U.S. 114 (1966) 385 U.S. 114

BADGLEY ET AL. v. HARE, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.
No. 505.
Decided November 21, 1966.

376 Mich. 410, 137 N.W.2d 495, 138 N. W. 2d 16; 377 Mich. 396, 140 N.W.2d 436, appeal dismissed.

William T. Gossett for appellants.

Frank J. Kelly, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Curtis G. Beck, Assistant Attorney General, for Hare; Theodore Sachs for Scholle et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA, <a href="/cases/federal/us/385/114/case.html"><a class="related-case" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/114/"><a class="related-case" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/114/">385 U.S. 114</a></a></a> (1966) 385 U.S. 114 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA, 385 U.S. 114 (1966) 385 U.S. 114

BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 271, Misc.
Decided November 21, 1966.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Appellant pro se.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack K. Weber, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

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. 114, 115

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.