LAKE v. POTOMAC LIGHT & POWER CO., 393 U.S. 77 (1968)

U.S. Supreme Court

LAKE v. POTOMAC LIGHT & POWER CO., 393 U.S. 77 (1968)

393 U.S. 77

LAKE ET VIR v. POTOMAC LIGHT & POWER CO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA.
No. 364.
Decided October 21, 1968.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

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.


DYMYTRYSHYN v. ESPERDY, <a href="/cases/federal/us/393/77/case.html">393 U.S. 77</a> (1968) 393 U.S. 77 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

DYMYTRYSHYN v. ESPERDY, 393 U.S. 77 (1968)

393 U.S. 77

DYMYTRYSHYN ET AL. v.
ESPERDY, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 380.
Decided October 21, 1968.

285 F. Supp. 507, affirmed.

John J. Abt for appellants.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, and Philip R. Monahan for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 393 U.S. 77, 78




U.S. Supreme Court

LAKE v. POTOMAC LIGHT & POWER CO., 393 U.S. 77 (1968)

393 U.S. 77

LAKE ET VIR v. POTOMAC LIGHT & POWER CO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA.
No. 364.
Decided October 21, 1968.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

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.


DYMYTRYSHYN v. ESPERDY, <a href="/cases/federal/us/393/77/case.html">393 U.S. 77</a> (1968) 393 U.S. 77 (1968) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

DYMYTRYSHYN v. ESPERDY, 393 U.S. 77 (1968)

393 U.S. 77

DYMYTRYSHYN ET AL. v.
ESPERDY, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 380.
Decided October 21, 1968.

285 F. Supp. 507, affirmed.

John J. Abt for appellants.

Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, and Philip R. Monahan for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 393 U.S. 77, 78

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.