BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court

BADGLEY v. HARE, (1966)

No. 505

Argued:     Decided: November 21, 1966

376 Mich. 410, 137 N. W. 2d 495, 138 N. W. 2d 16; 377 Mich. 396, 140 N. W. 2d 436, appeal dismissed.

William T. Gossett for appellants.

Frank J. Kelly, Attorney General of Michigan, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Curtis G. Beck, Assistant Attorney General, for Hare; Theodore Sachs for Scholle et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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


BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA, <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/385/114.html">385 U.S. 114 </a> (1966) 385 U.S. 114 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA, 385 U.S. 114 (1966)

385 U.S. 114

BOYDEN v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 271, Misc.
Decided November 21, 1966.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Appellant pro se.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Jack K. Weber, 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. [385 U.S. 114, 115]  

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More