NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE, 385 U.S. 450 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court
NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE, 385 U.S. 450 (1967) 385 U.S. 450NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. No. 767. Decided January 9, 1967.
68 Wash. 2d 72,� 415 P.2d 93, appeal dismissed.
Footnotes[Footnote �] ERRATA: "72" in "68 Wash. 2d 72" should be "721".
Appellant pro se.
A. L. Newbould 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
KIRKPATRICK v. PREISLER, 385 U.S. 450 (1967) 385 U.S. 450 KIRKPATRICK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL. v. PREISLER ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 738. Decided January 9, 1967. 257 F. Supp. 953, affirmed. Norman H. Anderson, Attorney General of Missouri, and J. Gordon Siddens and Thomas J. Downey, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants. Paul W. Preisler, pro se, and for other appellees. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.
U.S. Supreme Court
NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE, 385 U.S. 450 (1967) 385 U.S. 450NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. No. 767. Decided January 9, 1967.
68 Wash. 2d 72,� 415 P.2d 93, appeal dismissed.
Footnotes[Footnote �] ERRATA: "72" in "68 Wash. 2d 72" should be "721".
Appellant pro se.
A. L. Newbould 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
KIRKPATRICK v. PREISLER, 385 U.S. 450 (1967) 385 U.S. 450 KIRKPATRICK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL. v. PREISLER ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI. No. 738. Decided January 9, 1967. 257 F. Supp. 953, affirmed. Norman H. Anderson, Attorney General of Missouri, and J. Gordon Siddens and Thomas J. Downey, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants. Paul W. Preisler, pro se, and for other appellees. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.
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.
