Skip to content


Sinclair Vs. Baker - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number377 U.S. 215
AppellantSinclair
RespondentBaker
Excerpt:
.....of appeal of california, second appellate district. no. 949. decided may 18, 1964. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. reported below: 219 cal. app. 2d 817, 33 cal. rptr. 522. per curiam. the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. page 377 u.s. 215, 216 luckenbach steamship v. franchise tax board of cal., 377 u.s. 215 (1964) 377 u.s. 215 (1964) "> u.s. supreme court luckenbach steamship v. franchise tax board of cal., 377 u.s. 215 (1964) 377 u.s. 215 luckenbach steamship co., inc., v. franchise tax board of california. appeal from the district court of appeal of california,.....
Judgment:
SINCLAIR v. BAKER - 377 U.S. 215 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court SINCLAIR v. BAKER, 377 U.S. 215 (1964) 377 U.S. 215

SINCLAIR v. BAKER ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT. No. 949.
Decided May 18, 1964.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 219 Cal. App. 2d 817, 33 Cal. Rptr. 522.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 377 U.S. 215, 216


LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CAL., <a href="/100901"> 377 U.S. 215 </a> (1964) 377 U.S. 215 (1964) "> U.S. Supreme Court LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CAL., 377 U.S. 215 (1964) 377 U.S. 215

LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP CO., INC., v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD JUDICIAL
DISTRICT. No. 916.
Decided May 18, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 219 Cal. App. 2d 710, 33 Cal. Rptr. 544.

Hart H. Spiegel and John Hays for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, James E. Sabine, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest P. Goodman and John J. Klee, Jr., 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.




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