RAY v. OHIO

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court

GRIFFITH v. CALIFORNIA, (1960)

No. 457

Argued:     Decided: December 5, 1960

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 179 Cal. App. 2d 558, 4 Cal. Rptr. 531.

J. B. Tietz for appellant.

Robert E. Reed and R. B. Pegram for the State of California, and Roger Arneberg and Bourke Jones for the City of Los Angeles, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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


RAY v. OHIO, <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/364/476.html">364 U.S. 476 </a> (1960) 364 U.S. 476 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

RAY v. OHIO, 364 U.S. 476 (1960)

364 U.S. 476

RAY v. OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 237, Misc.
Decided December 5, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 170 Ohio St. 201, 163 N. E. 2d 176.

Ralph Atkinson for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to supplement the jurisdictional statement is granted. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. [364 U.S. 476, 477]  

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More