OHIO v. DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO.

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court

SIEGEL v. ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY, NEW YORK, (1959)

No. 773

Argued:     Decided: June 1, 1959

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 5 N. Y. 2d 707, 708.

William G. Mulligan for appellants.

Frank H. Gordon for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.


OHIO v. DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO., <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/359/552.html">359 U.S. 552 </a> (1959) 359 U.S. 552 (1959) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

OHIO v. DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO., 359 U.S. 552 (1959)

359 U.S. 552

OHIO EX REL. KLAPP, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, v. DAYTON POWER & LIGHT CO.
ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 851.
Decided June 1, 1959.

Certiorari granted and judgment reversed.

Reported below: 263 F.2d 909.

Robert Houston French, Haveth E. Mau and R. K. Wilson for petitioner.

Julian de Bruyn Kops for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 3 Cranch 267; Removal Cases, 100 U.S. 457 ; Indianapolis v. Chase National Bank, 314 U.S. 63 .

[359 U.S. 552, 1]  

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More