Skip to content


Salas Vs. Texas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number375 U.S. 15
AppellantSalas
RespondentTexas
Excerpt:
.....is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. page 375 u.s. 15, 16 state corporation commission of kansas v. united states, 375 u.s. 15 (1963) 375 u.s. 15 (1963) "> u.s. supreme court state corporation commission of kansas v. united states, 375 u.s. 15 (1963) 375 u.s. 15 state corporation commission of kansas v. united states et al. appeal from the united states district court for the district of kansas. no. 217. decided october 14, 1963. 216 f. supp. 376, affirmed. byron m. gray and robert londerholm for appellant. solicitor general cox, assistant attorney general orrick, robert b. hummel, robert w. ginnane and stanton p. sender for the united states et al. harvey huston and roth a......
Judgment:
SALAS v. TEXAS - 375 U.S. 15 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court SALAS v. TEXAS, 375 U.S. 15 (1963) 375 U.S. 15

SALAS v. TEXAS.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS.
No. 118, Misc.
Decided October 14, 1963.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 365 S. W. 2d 174.

Joseph A. Calamia for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 375 U.S. 15, 16


STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF KANSAS v. UNITED STATES, <a href="/100487"> 375 U.S. 15 </a> (1963) 375 U.S. 15 (1963) "> U.S. Supreme Court STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF KANSAS v. UNITED STATES, 375 U.S. 15 (1963) 375 U.S. 15

STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF KANSAS v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.
No. 217.
Decided October 14, 1963.

216 F. Supp. 376, affirmed.

Byron M. Gray and Robert Londerholm for appellant.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel, Robert W. Ginnane and Stanton P. Sender for the United States et al.

Harvey Huston and Roth A. Gatewood for railroad appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.




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