• View enhanced case on Westlaw
  • KeyCite this case on Westlaw
  • http://laws.findlaw.com/us/364/476.html
    Cases citing this case: Supreme Court
    Cases citing this case: Circuit Courts
    GRIFFITH v. CALIFORNIA, 364 U.S. 476 (1960)

    U.S. Supreme Court

    GRIFFITH v. CALIFORNIA, 364 U.S. 476 (1960)

    364 U.S. 476

    GRIFFITH v. CALIFORNIA ET AL.
    APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
    APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 457.
    Decided December 5, 1960.

    Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

    Reported below: 179 Cal. App. 2d 558, 4 Cal. Rptr. 531.

    J. B. Tietz for appellant.

    Robert E. Reed and R. B. Pegram for the State of California, and Roger Arneberg and Bourke Jones for the City of Los Angeles, appellees.

    PER CURIAM.

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


    RAY v. OHIO, <a href="/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=364&invol=476">364 U.S. 476 </a> (1960) 364 U.S. 476 (1960) ">

    U.S. Supreme Court

    RAY v. OHIO, 364 U.S. 476 (1960)

    364 U.S. 476

    RAY v. OHIO.
    APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
    No. 237, Misc.
    Decided December 5, 1960.

    Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

    Reported below: 170 Ohio St. 201, 163 N. E. 2d 176.

    Ralph Atkinson for appellant.

    PER CURIAM.

    The motion for leave to supplement the jurisdictional statement is granted. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

    MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. [364 U.S. 476, 477]  

    FindLaw Career Center

      Search for Law Jobs:

        Post a Job  |  View More Jobs
    Ads by FindLaw