JORDAN v. ARIZONA EX REL. NELSON, 396 U.S. 5 (1969)
U.S. Supreme Court
JORDAN v. ARIZONA EX REL. NELSON, 396 U.S. 5 (1969) 396 U.S. 5JORDAN v. ARIZONA EX REL. NELSON,
ATTORNEY GENERAL
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
No. 204.
Decided October 13, 1969
104 Ariz. 193, 450 P.2d 383, appeal dismissed.
Stewart L. Udall for appellant.
Gary K. Nelson, Attorney General of Arizona, appellee, pro se.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
396 U.S. 5 (1969) 396 U.S. 5 (1969) ">
U.S. Supreme Court
SHAPIRO, v. SOLMAN, 396 U.S. 5 (1969) 396 U.S. 5SHAPIRO, COMMISSIONER OF WELFARE OF CONNECTICUT v. SOLMAN ET
AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF
CONNECTICUT No. 215.
Decided October 13, 1969
300 F. Supp. 409, affirmed.
Robert K. Killian, Attorney General of Connecticut, and Francis J. MacGregor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Francis X. Dineen for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. See King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309.
U.S. Supreme Court
JORDAN v. ARIZONA EX REL. NELSON, 396 U.S. 5 (1969) 396 U.S. 5 JORDAN v. ARIZONA EX REL. NELSON, ATTORNEY GENERALAPPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA
No. 204.
Decided October 13, 1969
104 Ariz. 193, 450 P.2d 383, appeal dismissed. Stewart L. Udall for appellant. Gary K. Nelson, Attorney General of Arizona, appellee, pro se. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
396 U.S. 5 (1969) 396 U.S. 5 (1969) ">
U.S. Supreme Court
SHAPIRO, v. SOLMAN, 396 U.S. 5 (1969) 396 U.S. 5 SHAPIRO, COMMISSIONER OF WELFARE OF CONNECTICUT v. SOLMAN ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
CONNECTICUT No. 215.
Decided October 13, 1969
300 F. Supp. 409, affirmed. Robert K. Killian, Attorney General of Connecticut, and Francis J. MacGregor, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Francis X. Dineen for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. See King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309. Page 396 U.S. 5, 6