HEIDER, ADMINISTRATOR v. MICHIGAN SUGAR CO., 385 U.S. 362 (1966)

U.S. Supreme Court

HEIDER, ADMINISTRATOR v. MICHIGAN SUGAR CO., 385 U.S. 362 (1966)

385 U.S. 362

HEIDER, ADMINISTRATOR v. MICHIGAN SUGAR CO.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.
No. 48.
Argued December 8, 1966.
Decided December 12, 1966.

375 Mich. 490, 134 N. W. 2d 637, dismissed.

Gregory M. Pillon argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Thomas C. Mayer.

Harry M. Plotkin argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Carl H. Smith.

PER CURIAM.

The writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Page 385 U.S. 362, 363




U.S. Supreme Court

HEIDER, ADMINISTRATOR v. MICHIGAN SUGAR CO., 385 U.S. 362 (1966)

385 U.S. 362

HEIDER, ADMINISTRATOR v. MICHIGAN SUGAR CO.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN.
No. 48.
Argued December 8, 1966.
Decided December 12, 1966.

375 Mich. 490, 134 N. W. 2d 637, dismissed.

Gregory M. Pillon argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Thomas C. Mayer.

Harry M. Plotkin argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Carl H. Smith.

PER CURIAM.

The writ is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Page 385 U.S. 362, 363

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.