Skip to content


Kavanagh Vs. Brown - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number371 U.S. 35
AppellantKavanagh
RespondentBrown
Excerpt:
..... per curiam. the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. city of akron v. ohio, 371 u.s. 35 (1962) 371 u.s. 35 (1962) "> u.s. supreme court city of akron v. ohio, 371 u.s. 35 (1962) 371 u.s. 35 city of akron et al. v. ohio ex rel. mcelroy, attorney general. appeal from the supreme court of ohio. no. 327. decided october 22, 1962. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 173 ohio st. 189, 181 n.e. 2d 26. james v. barbuto and sal germano for appellants. mark mcelroy, attorney general of ohio, and theodore r. saker and jay c. flowers, assistant attorneys general, for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal.....
Judgment:
KAVANAGH v. BROWN - 371 U.S. 35 (1962)
U.S. Supreme Court KAVANAGH v. BROWN, 371 U.S. 35 (1962) 371 U.S. 35

KAVANAGH ET AL. v. BROWN, TREASURER OF MICHIGAN, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. No. 299.
Decided October 22, 1962.

206 F. Supp. 479, affirmed.

Thomas M. Kavanagh and Eugene F. Black, appellants, pro se.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Eugene Krasicky, Solicitor General, and Stanton S. Faville, Chief Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.


CITY OF AKRON v. OHIO, <a href="/100244"> 371 U.S. 35 </a> (1962) 371 U.S. 35 (1962) "> U.S. Supreme Court CITY OF AKRON v. OHIO, 371 U.S. 35 (1962) 371 U.S. 35

CITY OF AKRON ET AL. v. OHIO EX REL. McELROY, ATTORNEY GENERAL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 327.
Decided October 22, 1962.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 173 Ohio St. 189, 181 N.E. 2d 26.

James V. Barbuto and Sal Germano for appellants.

Mark McElroy, Attorney General of Ohio, and Theodore R. Saker and Jay C. Flowers, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 371 U.S. 35, 36




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