Skip to content


Lanza Vs. New Jersey - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number375 U.S. 451
AppellantLanza
RespondentNew Jersey
Excerpt:
..... appeal from the supreme court of new jersey. no. 560. decided january 20, 1964. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. reported below: 39 n. j. 595, 190 a. 2d 374. jacob green for appellants. arthur j. sills, attorney general of new jersey, and bernard hellring for appellee. 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. aronoff v. franchise tax board of california, 375 u.s. 451 (1964) 375 u.s. 451 (1964) "> u.s. supreme court aronoff v. franchise tax board of california, 375 u.s. 451 (1964) 375 u.s. 451 aronoff et al. v. franchise tax.....
Judgment:
LANZA v. NEW JERSEY - 375 U.S. 451 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court LANZA v. NEW JERSEY, 375 U.S. 451 (1964) 375 U.S. 451

LANZA ET AL. v. NEW JERSEY.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY.
No. 560.
Decided January 20, 1964.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 39 N. J. 595, 190 A. 2d 374.

Jacob Green for appellants.

Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Bernard Hellring for appellee.

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.


ARONOFF v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, <a href="/100992"> 375 U.S. 451 </a> (1964) 375 U.S. 451 (1964) "> U.S. Supreme Court ARONOFF v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, 375 U.S. 451 (1964) 375 U.S. 451

ARONOFF ET AL. v. FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 639.
Decided January 20, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 60 Cal. 2d 177, 383 P.2d 409.

Thomas W. LeSage for appellants.

Stanley Mosk, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufmann, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest P. Goodman, Deputy Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 375 U.S. 451, 452




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