ARDEN FARMS CO. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 386 U.S. 350 (1967)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court Reports
ARDEN FARMS CO. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 386 U.S. 350 (1967) 386 U.S. 350ARDEN FARMS CO. ET AL. v. STATE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON.
No. 1004.
Decided March 20, 1967.
245 Ore. -, 420 P.2d 379, appeal dismissed.
James C. Dezendorf for appellants.
Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, and Harold E. Burke and Don Parker, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON.
No. 1004.
Decided March 20, 1967.
245 Ore. -, 420 P.2d 379, appeal dismissed. James C. Dezendorf for appellants. Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, and Harold E. Burke and Don Parker, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument. Page 386 U.S. 350, 351
U.S. Supreme Court Reports
ARDEN FARMS CO. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, 386 U.S. 350 (1967) 386 U.S. 350 (1967) 386 U.S. 350 386 U.S. 350"> ARDEN FARMS CO. ET AL. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON.
No. 1004.
Decided March 20, 1967.
245 Ore. -, 420 P.2d 379, appeal dismissed. James C. Dezendorf for appellants. Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, and Harold E. Burke and Don Parker, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument. Page 386 U.S. 350, 351
Search This Case
