HILLIARD v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE 393 U.S. 321 (1969)

United States Supreme Court

HILLIARD v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE (1969)

No. 745

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, <flCite id="/us-supreme-court/393/321#">393 U.S. 321 </flCite> (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]

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Out of date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