BUTLER v. DUNBAR

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court

MILLER v. CITY OF CHICAGO, (1963)

No. 260

Argued:     Decided: October 14, 1963

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 27 Ill. 2d 211, 188 N. E. 2d 694.

Harry G. Fins and Favil David Berns for appellants.

John C. Melaniphy and Sydney R. Drebin for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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


BUTLER v. DUNBAR, <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/375/11.html">375 U.S. 11 </a> (1963) 375 U.S. 11 (1963) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BUTLER v. DUNBAR, 375 U.S. 11 (1963)

375 U.S. 11

BUTLER v. DUNBAR, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 244.
Decided October 14, 1963.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 59 Cal. 2d 157, 378 P.2d 812.

J. Perry Langford for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Gordon Ringer, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. [375 U.S. 11, 12]  

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More