GREENWALD v. MARYLAND

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court

GREENWALD v. MARYLAND, (1960)

No. 859

Argued:     Decided: June 20, 1960

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 221 Md. 235, 155 A. 2d 894.

Harry Silbert, A. Jerome Diener and Sidney Schlachman for appellant.

C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General of Maryland, Stedman Prescott, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and James H. Norris, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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


ANDERSON v. THORINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/363/719.html">363 U.S. 719 </a> (1960) 363 U.S. 719 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

ANDERSON v. THORINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., 363 U.S. 719 (1960)

363 U.S. 719

ANDERSON v. THORINGTON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 878.
Decided June 20, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question.

Reported below: 201 Va. 266, 110 S. E. 2d 396.

George E. Allen and Seymour I. Toll for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question. [363 U.S. 719, 720]  

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More