Skip to content


Anderson Vs. Ball - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number368 U.S. 18
AppellantAnderson
RespondentBall
Excerpt:
..... appeal from the supreme court of illinois. no. 326. decided october 23, 1961. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. reported below: 21 ill. 2d 396, 172 n. e. 2d 760. charles r. holton for appellants. guy r. williams for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. page 368 u.s. 18, 19 tinsley v. city of richmond, 368 u.s. 18 (1961) 368 u.s. 18 (1961) "> u.s. supreme court tinsley v. city of richmond, 368 u.s. 18 (1961) 368 u.s. 18 tinsley v. city of richmond. appeal from the supreme court of appeals of virginia. no. 315. decided.....
Judgment:
ANDERSON v. BALL - 368 U.S. 18 (1961)
U.S. Supreme Court ANDERSON v. BALL, 368 U.S. 18 (1961) 368 U.S. 18

ANDERSON ET AL. v. BALL, COUNTY TREASURER.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 326.
Decided October 23, 1961.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 21 Ill. 2d 396, 172 N. E. 2d 760.

Charles R. Holton for appellants.

Guy R. Williams for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

Page 368 U.S. 18, 19


TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND, <a href="/100018"> 368 U.S. 18 </a> (1961) 368 U.S. 18 (1961) "> U.S. Supreme Court TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND, 368 U.S. 18 (1961) 368 U.S. 18

TINSLEY v. CITY OF RICHMOND.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 315.
Decided October 23, 1961.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 202 Va. 707, 119 S. E. 2d 488.

Martin A. Martin, Thurgood Marshall, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Charles L. Black, Jr. for appellant.

J. E. Drinard 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.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //