Skip to content


Schackman Vs. California - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number379 U.S. 3
AppellantSchackman
RespondentCalifornia
Excerpt:
.....court of california, county of los angeles. no. 105. decided october 12, 1964. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. burton marks for appellants. roger arnebergh, philip e. grey and wm. e. doran for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. battista v. milk control commission of pennsylvania, 379 u.s. 3 (1964) 379 u.s. 3 (1964) "> u.s. supreme court battista v. milk control commission of pennsylvania, 379 u.s. 3 (1964) 379 u.s. 3 battista et al., trading as nor-view farm v. milk control commission of pennsylvania. appeal from the supreme court of pennsylvania. no. 295. decided october.....
Judgment:
SCHACKMAN v. CALIFORNIA - 379 U.S. 3 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court SCHACKMAN v. CALIFORNIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964) 379 U.S. 3

SCHACKMAN ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES. No. 105.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Burton Marks for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh, Philip E. Grey and Wm. E. Doran for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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


BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, <a href="/100781"> 379 U.S. 3 </a> (1964) 379 U.S. 3 (1964) "> U.S. Supreme Court BATTISTA v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF PENNSYLVANIA, 379 U.S. 3 (1964) 379 U.S. 3

BATTISTA ET AL., TRADING AS NOR-VIEW FARM v. MILK CONTROL COMMISSION OF
PENNSYLVANIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 295.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 413 Pa. 652, 198 A. 2d 840.

Frederick A. Ballard for appellants.

Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Anthony W. Novasitis, Jr., Assistant 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 379 U.S. 3, 4




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