HILLIARD v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, 393 U.S. 321 (1969)

U.S. Supreme Court

HILLIARD v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, 393 U.S. 321 (1969)

393 U.S. 321

HILLIARD v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
No. 745.
Decided January 13, 1969.

213 So.2d 689, appeal dismissed.

Richard W. Wilson for appellant.

Osee R. Fagan for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, <a href="/cases/federal/us/393/321/case.html">393 U.S. 321</a> (1969) 393 U.S. 321 (1969) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, 393 U.S. 321 (1969)

393 U.S. 321

MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
No. 756.
Decided January 13, 1969.

221 Tenn. 724, 431 S. W. 2d 277, appeal dismissed.

H. Vincent E. Mitchell and J. Martin Regan for appellant.

George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Milton P. Rice, Deputy Attorney 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 STEWART and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 393 U.S. 321, 322




U.S. Supreme Court

HILLIARD v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, 393 U.S. 321 (1969)

393 U.S. 321

HILLIARD v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
No. 745.
Decided January 13, 1969.

213 So.2d 689, appeal dismissed.

Richard W. Wilson for appellant.

Osee R. Fagan for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, <a href="/cases/federal/us/393/321/case.html">393 U.S. 321</a> (1969) 393 U.S. 321 (1969) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, 393 U.S. 321 (1969)

393 U.S. 321

MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
No. 756.
Decided January 13, 1969.

221 Tenn. 724, 431 S. W. 2d 277, appeal dismissed.

H. Vincent E. Mitchell and J. Martin Regan for appellant.

George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Milton P. Rice, Deputy Attorney 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 STEWART and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 393 U.S. 321, 322

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.