Skip to content


Sayles Finishing Plants, Inc., Vs. Toomey - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number375 U.S. 9
AppellantSayles Finishing Plants, Inc.,
RespondentToomey
Excerpt:
.....and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. brewer v. north carolina, 375 u.s. 9 (1963) 375 u.s. 9 (1963) "> u.s. supreme court brewer v. north carolina, 375 u.s. 9 (1963) 375 u.s. 9 brewer et al. v. north carolina. appeal from the supreme court of north carolina. no. 291. decided october 14, 1963. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 258 n.c. 533, 129 s. e. 2d 262. malcolm b. seawell and william t. hatch for appellants. thomas wade bruton, attorney general of north carolina, and harry w. mcgalliard, deputy attorney general, for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a.....
Judgment:
SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v. TOOMEY - 375 U.S. 9 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v. TOOMEY, 375 U.S. 9 (1963) 375 U.S. 9

SAYLES FINISHING PLANTS, INC., v. TOOMEY, TAX ASSESSOR.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RHODE ISLAND.
No. 188.
Decided October 14, 1963.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: See ___ R. I. ___, 188 A. 2d 91.

Frederick Bernays Wiener and Gerald W. Harrington for appellant.

Charles S. Rhyne and Alfred J. Tighe, Jr. for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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


BREWER v. NORTH CAROLINA, <a href="/100481"> 375 U.S. 9 </a> (1963) 375 U.S. 9 (1963) "> U.S. Supreme Court BREWER v. NORTH CAROLINA, 375 U.S. 9 (1963) 375 U.S. 9

BREWER ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA.
No. 291.
Decided October 14, 1963.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 258 N.C. 533, 129 S. E. 2d 262.

Malcolm B. Seawell and William T. Hatch for appellants.

Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General of North Carolina, and Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 375 U.S. 9, 10




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