HOLDEN v. ARNEBERGH, 394 U.S. 102 (1969)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
HOLDEN v. ARNEBERGH, 394 U.S. 102 (1969) 394 U.S. 102HOLDEN ET AL. v. ARNEBERGH, CITY
ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT.
No. 945.
Decided March 3, 1969.
265 Cal. App. 2d 87, 71 Cal. Rptr. 401, appeal dismissed.
Burton Marks for appellants.
Roger Arnebergh, pro se, and Robert B. Burns for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed, it appearing that the judgment below rests upon an adequate state ground.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT.
No. 945.
Decided March 3, 1969.
265 Cal. App. 2d 87, 71 Cal. Rptr. 401, appeal dismissed. Burton Marks for appellants. Roger Arnebergh, pro se, and Robert B. Burns for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed, it appearing that the judgment below rests upon an adequate state ground. Page 394 U.S. 102, 103
U.S. Supreme Court
HOLDEN v. ARNEBERGH, 394 U.S. 102 (1969) 394 U.S. 102 HOLDEN ET AL. v. ARNEBERGH, CITY ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT.
No. 945.
Decided March 3, 1969.
265 Cal. App. 2d 87, 71 Cal. Rptr. 401, appeal dismissed. Burton Marks for appellants. Roger Arnebergh, pro se, and Robert B. Burns for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed, it appearing that the judgment below rests upon an adequate state ground. Page 394 U.S. 102, 103
Search This Case
