Skip to content


Mcculloch Vs. California Franchise Tax Board - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number379 U.S. 133
AppellantMcculloch
RespondentCalifornia Franchise Tax Board
Excerpt:
.....v. california franchise tax board. appeal from the supreme court of california. no. 472. decided november 23, 1964. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 61 cal. 2d 186, 390 p.2d 412. walter l. nossaman for appellant. thomas c. lynch, attorney general of california, dan kaufmann, assistant attorney general, and ernest p. goodman and harry w. low, deputy 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 379 u.s. 133, 134
Judgment:
McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD - 379 U.S. 133 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, 379 U.S. 133 (1964) 379 U.S. 133

McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 472.
Decided November 23, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 61 Cal. 2d 186, 390 P.2d 412.

Walter L. Nossaman for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufmann, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest P. Goodman and Harry W. Low, Deputy 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 379 U.S. 133, 134




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