DELLA ROCCA v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 745 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

DELLA ROCCA v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 745 (1968) 390 U.S. 745

DELLA ROCCA v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 1105.
Decided April 29, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 388 F.2d 525, vacated and remanded.

Jerome Lewis and Thomas R. Newman for petitioner.

Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Haynes v. United States, ante, p. 85, and Simmons v. United States, ante, p. 377.

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. v. DIRECTOR, <a href="/cases/federal/us/390/745/">390 U.S. 745</a> (1968) 390 U.S. 745 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. v. DIRECTOR, 390 U.S. 745 (1968) 390 U.S. 745

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY.
No. 1225.
Decided April 29, 1968.

50 N. J. 471, 236 A.2d 577, appeal dismissed.

Nicholas Conover English for appellant.

Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Elias Abelson and Jeffrey R. Lowe, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

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 390 U.S. 745, 746

 


U.S. Supreme Court

DELLA ROCCA v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 745 (1968) 390 U.S. 745

DELLA ROCCA v. UNITED STATES.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 1105.
Decided April 29, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 388 F.2d 525, vacated and remanded.

Jerome Lewis and Thomas R. Newman for petitioner.

Solicitor General Griswold for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Haynes v. United States, ante, p. 85, and Simmons v. United States, ante, p. 377.

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. v. DIRECTOR, <a href="/cases/federal/us/390/745/"><a class="related-case" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/745/"><a class="related-case" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/745/">390 U.S. 745</a></a></a> (1968) 390 U.S. 745 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. v. DIRECTOR, 390 U.S. 745 (1968) 390 U.S. 745

ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. v. DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF TAXATION.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY.
No. 1225.
Decided April 29, 1968.

50 N. J. 471, 236 A.2d 577, appeal dismissed.

Nicholas Conover English for appellant.

Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Elias Abelson and Jeffrey R. Lowe, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

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 390 U.S. 745, 746

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.