Skip to content


Bontz Vs. Kansas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number377 U.S. 162
AppellantBontz
RespondentKansas
Excerpt:
bontz v. kansas - 377 u.s. 162 (1964) u.s. supreme court bontz v. kansas, 377 u.s. 162 (1964) 377 u.s. 162 bontz v. kansas. appeal from the supreme court of kansas. no. 758. decided may 4, 1964. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 192 kan. 158, 163, 386 p.2d 201, 205. verne m. laing for appellant. william m. ferguson, attorney general of kansas, and keith sanborn for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice black, mr. justice douglas and mr. justice harlan are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. page 377 u.s. 162, 163
Judgment:
BONTZ v. KANSAS - 377 U.S. 162 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court BONTZ v. KANSAS, 377 U.S. 162 (1964) 377 U.S. 162

BONTZ v. KANSAS.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 758.
Decided May 4, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 192 Kan. 158, 163, 386 P.2d 201, 205.

Verne M. Laing for appellant.

William M. Ferguson, Attorney General of Kansas, and Keith Sanborn for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 377 U.S. 162, 163




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