TIETZ v. MARIENTHAL 385 U.S. 8 (1966)

United States Supreme Court

TIETZ v. MARIENTHAL (1966)

No. 217

Decided: October 10, 1966

238 Cal. App. 2d 905, 48 Cal. Rptr. 245, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

J. B. Tietz for appellants.

Harold W. Kennedy and Henry F. Walker for appellees.

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.

REYNOLDS v. LA. BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, <flCite id="/us-supreme-court/385/8#">385 U.S. 8 </flCite> (1966) 385 U.S. 8 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

REYNOLDS v. LA. BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, 385 U.S. 8 (1966)

385 U.S. 8

REYNOLDS, DBA LARRY & KATZ, ET AL. v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE CONTROL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. No. 229.
Decided October 10, 1966.

248 La. 639, 181 So.2d 377, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Saul Stone and Paul O. H. Pigman for appellants.

George A. Bourgeois, Clem H. Sehrt and Peter J. Butler 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. 8, 9]

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Out of date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!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network