BIDDLE, ADMINISTRATRIX v. BOWSER, 393 U.S. 10 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

BIDDLE, ADMINISTRATRIX v. BOWSER, 393 U.S. 10 (1968)

393 U.S. 10

BIDDLE, ADMINISTRATRIX v. BOWSER ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 159.
Decided October 14, 1968.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Downey Rice for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


BROWN v. RESOR, <a href="/cases/federal/us/393/10/case.html">393 U.S. 10</a> (1968) 393 U.S. 10 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BROWN v. RESOR, 393 U.S. 10 (1968)

393 U.S. 10

BROWN ET AL. v. RESOR, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 133, Misc.
Decided October 14, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 388 F.2d 682, vacated and remanded.

Charles Morgan, Jr., Morris Brown, Benjamin E. Smith, and Melvin L. Wulf for petitioners.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234.

Page 393 U.S. 10, 11

LOPTIEN v. CITY OF SYCAMORE, 393 U.S. 11 (1968) LOPTIEN ET UX. v. CITY OF SYCAMORE. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. No. 179. Decided October 14, 1968.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

William C. Murphy for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to strike the response to the jurisdictional statement is denied.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.




U.S. Supreme Court

BIDDLE, ADMINISTRATRIX v. BOWSER, 393 U.S. 10 (1968)

393 U.S. 10

BIDDLE, ADMINISTRATRIX v. BOWSER ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 159.
Decided October 14, 1968.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Downey Rice for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


BROWN v. RESOR, <a href="/cases/federal/us/393/10/case.html">393 U.S. 10</a> (1968) 393 U.S. 10 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BROWN v. RESOR, 393 U.S. 10 (1968)

393 U.S. 10

BROWN ET AL. v. RESOR, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No. 133, Misc.
Decided October 14, 1968.

Certiorari granted; 388 F.2d 682, vacated and remanded.

Charles Morgan, Jr., Morris Brown, Benjamin E. Smith, and Melvin L. Wulf for petitioners.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, and Beatrice Rosenberg for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in light of Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234.

Page 393 U.S. 10, 11

LOPTIEN v. CITY OF SYCAMORE, 393 U.S. 11 (1968) LOPTIEN ET UX. v. CITY OF SYCAMORE. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. No. 179. Decided October 14, 1968.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

William C. Murphy for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to strike the response to the jurisdictional statement is denied.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

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.