MALONEY v. HOLDEN 379 U.S. 6 (1964)

United States Supreme Court

MALONEY v. HOLDEN (1964)

No. 225

Decided: October 12, 1964

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. [379 U.S. 6, 7]

COOPER-JARRETT, v. UNITED STATES, <flCite id="/us-supreme-court/379/6#">379 U.S. 6 </flCite> (1964) 379 U.S. 6 (1964) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

COOPER-JARRETT, v. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 6 (1964)

379 U.S. 6

COOPER-JARRETT, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI. No. 159.
Decided October 12, 1964.

226 F. Supp. 318, affirmed.

Kenneth E. Midgley, Thomas J. Hogan, Bryce Rea, Jr., Roland Rice, Homer S. Carpenter and John S. Fessenden for appellants.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al.; and Carl E. Enggas, D. Robert Thomas, John F. Donelan, Nuel D. Belnap, Harvey Huston, John A. Daily, Paul R. Duke and John M. Cleary for Eastern Railroads et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law