MITCHELL v. RIDDELL, 394 U.S. 456 (1969)
U.S. Supreme Court
MITCHELL v. RIDDELL, 394 U.S. 456 (1969) 394 U.S. 456MITCHELL ET AL. v. RIDDELL, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 1044.
Decided April 1, 1969.
402 F.2d 842, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, and Gilbert E. Andrews for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and 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
MacQUARRIE v. McLAUGHLIN, 394 U.S. 456 (1969) 394 U.S. 456 MacQUARRIE v. McLAUGHLIN, REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 1483, Misc.
Decided April 1, 1969.
294 F. Supp. 176, affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.
U.S. Supreme Court
MITCHELL v. RIDDELL, 394 U.S. 456 (1969) 394 U.S. 456MITCHELL ET AL. v. RIDDELL, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 1044.
Decided April 1, 1969.
402 F.2d 842, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Walters, and Gilbert E. Andrews for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and 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
MacQUARRIE v. McLAUGHLIN, 394 U.S. 456 (1969) 394 U.S. 456 MacQUARRIE v. McLAUGHLIN, REGISTRAR OF MOTOR VEHICLES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 1483, Misc.
Decided April 1, 1969.
294 F. Supp. 176, affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.
Page 394 U.S. 456, 457
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.
