• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/379/3.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    SCHACKMAN v. CALIFORNIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    SCHACKMAN v. CALIFORNIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964)

    379 U.S. 3

    SCHACKMAN ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA.
    APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
    OF LOS ANGELES. No. 105.
    Decided October 12, 1964.

    Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

    Burton Marks for appellants.

    Roger Arnebergh, Philip E. Grey and Wm. E. Doran for appellee.

    PER CURIAM.

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


    BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, <a href="/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=379&invol=3">379 U.S. 3 </a> (1964) 379 U.S. 3 (1964) ">

    U.S. Supreme Court

    BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964)

    379 U.S. 3

    BATTISTA ET AL., TRADING AS NOR-VIEW FARM v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF
    PENNSYLVANIA.
    APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 295.
    Decided October 12, 1964.

    Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

    Reported below: 413 Pa. 652, 198 A. 2d 840.

    Frederick A. Ballard for appellants.

    Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Anthony W. Novasitis, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

    PER CURIAM.

    The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. [379 U.S. 3, 4]  

    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw