MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court

HILLIARD v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE, (1969)

No. 745

Argued:     Decided: January 13, 1969

213 So.2d 689, appeal dismissed.

Richard W. Wilson for appellant.

Osee R. Fagan 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.


MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/393/321.html">393 U.S. 321 </a> (1969) 393 U.S. 321 (1969) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, 393 U.S. 321 (1969)

393 U.S. 321

MID-VALLEY PIPELINE CO. v. KING, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE.
No. 756.
Decided January 13, 1969.

221 Tenn. 724, 431 S. W. 2d 277, appeal dismissed.

H. Vincent E. Mitchell and J. Martin Regan for appellant.

George F. McCanless, Attorney General of Tennessee, and Milton P. Rice, Deputy Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. [393 U.S. 321, 322]  

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More