TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court

ANDERSON v. BALL, (1961)

No. 326

Argued:     Decided: October 23, 1961

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 21 Ill. 2d 396, 172 N. E. 2d 760.

Charles R. Holton for appellants.

Guy R. Williams for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. [368 U.S. 18, 19]  


TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND, <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/368/18.html">368 U.S. 18 </a> (1961) 368 U.S. 18 (1961) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND, 368 U.S. 18 (1961)

368 U.S. 18

TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 315.
Decided October 23, 1961.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 202 Va. 707, 119 S. E. 2d 488.

Martin A. Martin, Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Charles L. Black, Jr. for appellant.

J. E. Drinard for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More