BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court

SCHACKMAN v. CALIFORNIA, (1964)

No. 105

Argued:     Decided: October 12, 1964

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Burton Marks for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh, Philip E. Grey and Wm. E. Doran for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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


BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/379/3.html">379 U.S. 3 </a> (1964) 379 U.S. 3 (1964) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964)

379 U.S. 3

BATTISTA ET AL., TRADING AS NOR-VIEW FARM v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF
PENNSYLVANIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 295.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 413 Pa. 652, 198 A. 2d 840.

Frederick A. Ballard for appellants.

Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Anthony W. Novasitis, Jr., 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. [379 U.S. 3, 4]  

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More