SHAFFER v. BRIDGES, 397 U.S. 94 (1970)

U.S. Supreme Court

SHAFFER v. BRIDGES, 397 U.S. 94 (1970)

397 U.S. 94

SHAFFER v. BRIDGES
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 535, Misc.
Decided February 27, 1970

295 F. Supp. 869, appeal dismissed.

James Robertson and Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Attorney General of Mississippi, and Will S. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of the appellant for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The motion to dismiss is granted and the case is dismissed as moot.

 


U.S. Supreme Court

SHAFFER v. BRIDGES, 397 U.S. 94 (1970)

397 U.S. 94

SHAFFER v. BRIDGES
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI No. 535, Misc.
Decided February 27, 1970

295 F. Supp. 869, appeal dismissed.

James Robertson and Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Attorney General of Mississippi, and Will S. Wells, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion of the appellant for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The motion to dismiss is granted and the case is dismissed as moot.

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.