Skip to content


City of Plantation Vs. Utilities Operating Co., Inc. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number379 U.S. 2
AppellantCity of Plantation
RespondentUtilities Operating Co., Inc.
Excerpt:
.....inc. appeal from the supreme court of florida. no. 72. decided october 12, 1964. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 156 so.2d 842. carl a. hiaasen for appellant. william e. miller and robert j. corber 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. 2, 3 davis v. neely, 379 u.s. 2 (1964) 379 u.s. 2 (1964) "> u.s. supreme court davis v. neely, 379 u.s. 2 (1964) 379 u.s. 2 davis v. neely et ux. appeal from the supreme court of oklahoma. no. 68. decided october 12, 1964. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. reported below: 387 p.2d.....
Judgment:
CITY OF PLANTATION v. UTILITIES OPERATING CO., INC. - 379 U.S. 2 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court CITY OF PLANTATION v. UTILITIES OPERATING CO., INC., 379 U.S. 2 (1964) 379 U.S. 2

CITY OF PLANTATION v. UTILITIES OPERATING CO., INC.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
No. 72.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 156 So.2d 842.

Carl A. Hiaasen for appellant.

William E. Miller and Robert J. Corber 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. 2, 3


DAVIS v. NEELY, <a href="/100780"> 379 U.S. 2 </a> (1964) 379 U.S. 2 (1964) "> U.S. Supreme Court DAVIS v. NEELY, 379 U.S. 2 (1964) 379 U.S. 2

DAVIS v. NEELY ET UX.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA.
No. 68.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 387 P.2d 494.

John W. Willis for appellant.

Thomas D. Finney, Jr., and Grant W. Wiprud for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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




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