GUY v. TAHASH, 385 U.S. 12 (1966)

Syllabus

U.S. Supreme Court

GUY v. TAHASH, 385 U.S. 12 (1966) 385 U.S. 12

GUY v. TAHASH, WARDEN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.
No. 169, Misc.
Decided October 10, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed.

Page 385 U.S. 12, 13


385 U.S. 12 (1966) 385 U.S. 12 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BOOKCASE, INC. v. LEARY, 385 U.S. 12 (1966) 385 U.S. 12

BOOKCASE, INC., ET AL. v. LEARY, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. No. 332.
Decided October 10, 1966.

18 N.Y.2d 71, 218 N.E.2d 668, appeal dismissed.

Emanuel Redfield and Benjamin E. Winston for appellants.

J. Lee Rankin and Frank S. Hogan for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN are of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

 



Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

GUY v. TAHASH, 385 U.S. 12 (1966) 385 U.S. 12 GUY v. TAHASH, WARDEN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.
No. 169, Misc.
Decided October 10, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed.

Page 385 U.S. 12, 13


385 U.S. 12 (1966) 385 U.S. 12 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BOOKCASE, INC. v. LEARY, 385 U.S. 12 (1966) 385 U.S. 12 BOOKCASE, INC., ET AL. v. LEARY, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE
CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. No. 332.
Decided October 10, 1966.

18 N.Y.2d 71, 218 N.E.2d 668, appeal dismissed.

Emanuel Redfield and Benjamin E. Winston for appellants.

J. Lee Rankin and Frank S. Hogan for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN are of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.