Skip to content


Maloney Vs. Holden - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number379 U.S. 6
AppellantMaloney
RespondentHolden
Excerpt:
.....want of a substantial federal question. page 379 u.s. 6, 7 cooper-jarrett, v. united states, 379 u.s. 6 (1964) 379 u.s. 6 (1964) "> u.s. supreme court cooper-jarrett, v. united states, 379 u.s. 6 (1964) 379 u.s. 6 cooper-jarrett, inc., et al. v. united states et al. appeal from the united states district court for the western district of missouri. no. 159. decided october 12, 1964. 226 f. supp. 318, affirmed. kenneth e. midgley, thomas j. hogan, bryce rea, jr., roland rice, homer s. carpenter and john s. fessenden for appellants. solicitor general cox, assistant attorney general orrick, robert b. hummel and robert w. ginnane for the united states et al.; and carl e. enggas, d. robert thomas, john f......
Judgment:
MALONEY v. HOLDEN - 379 U.S. 6 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court MALONEY v. HOLDEN, 379 U.S. 6 (1964) 379 U.S. 6

MALONEY v. HOLDEN, JUDGE.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 225, Misc.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 379 U.S. 6, 7


COOPER-JARRETT, v. UNITED STATES, <a href="/100784"> 379 U.S. 6 </a> (1964) 379 U.S. 6 (1964) "> U.S. Supreme Court COOPER-JARRETT, v. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 6 (1964) 379 U.S. 6

COOPER-JARRETT, INC., ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI. No. 159.
Decided October 12, 1964.

226 F. Supp. 318, affirmed.

Kenneth E. Midgley, Thomas J. Hogan, Bryce Rea, Jr., Roland Rice, Homer S. Carpenter and John S. Fessenden for appellants.

Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Orrick, Robert B. Hummel and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al.; and Carl E. Enggas, D. Robert Thomas, John F. Donelan, Nuel D. Belnap, Harvey Huston, John A. Daily, Paul R. Duke and John M. Cleary for Eastern Railroads et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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




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