MATTIELLO v. CONNECTICUT, 395 U.S. 209 (1969)

U.S. Supreme Court

MATTIELLO v. CONNECTICUT, 395 U.S. 209 (1969)

395 U.S. 209

MATTIELLO v. CONNECTICUT.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CONNECTICUT.
No. 150.
Argued December 11, 1968.
Decided May 26, 1969.

4 Conn. Cir. 55, 225 A.2d 507, appeal dismissed.

Robert N. Grosby argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Joseph D. Harbaugh.

George F. Carroll, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.

Page 395 U.S. 209, 210

 


U.S. Supreme Court

MATTIELLO v. CONNECTICUT, 395 U.S. 209 (1969)

395 U.S. 209

MATTIELLO v. CONNECTICUT.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CONNECTICUT.
No. 150.
Argued December 11, 1968.
Decided May 26, 1969.

4 Conn. Cir. 55, 225 A.2d 507, appeal dismissed.

Robert N. Grosby argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Joseph D. Harbaugh.

George F. Carroll, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.

Page 395 U.S. 209, 210

Oral Argument - December 11, 1968
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.