CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. v. ROBERTSON LUMBER CO., 394 U.S. 714 (1969)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. v. ROBERTSON LUMBER CO., 394 U.S. 714 (1969)

394 U.S. 714

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. ET AL. v. ROBERTSON LUMBER CO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA.
No. 582.
Decided April 21, 1969.

160 N. W. 2d 61, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Kahl K. Spriggs and James L. Lamb for appellants.

Harold D. Shaft for appellee.

Solicitor General Griswold, at the invitation of the Court, filed a memorandum for the United States.

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.

Page 394 U.S. 714, 715




U.S. Supreme Court

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. v. ROBERTSON LUMBER CO., 394 U.S. 714 (1969)

394 U.S. 714

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY CO. ET AL. v. ROBERTSON LUMBER CO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH DAKOTA.
No. 582.
Decided April 21, 1969.

160 N. W. 2d 61, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Kahl K. Spriggs and James L. Lamb for appellants.

Harold D. Shaft for appellee.

Solicitor General Griswold, at the invitation of the Court, filed a memorandum for the United States.

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.

Page 394 U.S. 714, 715

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.