SAFEGUARD MUTUAL INSURANCE v. HOUS. AUTH., CITY, CAMDEN, 390 U.S. 716 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

SAFEGUARD MUTUAL INSURANCE v. HOUS. AUTH., CITY, CAMDEN, 390 U.S. 716 (1968)

390 U.S. 716

SAFEGUARD MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY
OF CAMDEN ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY. No. 1208.
Decided April 22, 1968.

Appeal dismissed.

Malcolm W. Berkowitz and Sidney W. Bookbinder for appellant.

Bryan B. McKernan for appellee Housing Authority of the City of Camden.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 390 U.S. 716, 717

 


U.S. Supreme Court

SAFEGUARD MUTUAL INSURANCE v. HOUS. AUTH., CITY, CAMDEN, 390 U.S. 716 (1968)

390 U.S. 716

SAFEGUARD MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY
OF CAMDEN ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY. No. 1208.
Decided April 22, 1968.

Appeal dismissed.

Malcolm W. Berkowitz and Sidney W. Bookbinder for appellant.

Bryan B. McKernan for appellee Housing Authority of the City of Camden.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 390 U.S. 716, 717

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.