Skip to content


Hodges Vs. Buckeye Cellulose Corp. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number382 U.S. 160
AppellantHodges
RespondentBuckeye Cellulose Corp.
Excerpt:
.....appeal of florida, first district. no. 548. decided november 22, 1965. 174 so.2d 565, appeal dismissed. george c. dayton and joe a. mcclain for appellants. richard w. barrett and j. lewis hall for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. page 382 u.s. 160, 161 reynolds metals co. v. washington, 382 u.s. 160 (1965) 382 u.s. 160 (1965) "> u.s. supreme court reynolds metals co. v. washington, 382 u.s. 160 (1965) 382 u.s. 160 reynolds metals co. v. washington et al. appeal from the supreme court of washington. no. 537. decided november 22, 1965. 65 wash. 2d 882, 400 p.2d 310, appeal dismissed. dewitt williams for.....
Judgment:
HODGES v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORP. - 382 U.S. 160 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court HODGES v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORP., 382 U.S. 160 (1965) 382 U.S. 160

HODGES ET AL. v. BUCKEYE CELLULOSE CORP.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT.
No. 548.
Decided November 22, 1965.

174 So.2d 565, appeal dismissed.

George C. Dayton and Joe A. McClain for appellants.

Richard W. Barrett and J. Lewis Hall for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Page 382 U.S. 160, 161


REYNOLDS METALS CO. v. WASHINGTON, <a href="/101054"> 382 U.S. 160 </a> (1965) 382 U.S. 160 (1965) "> U.S. Supreme Court REYNOLDS METALS CO. v. WASHINGTON, 382 U.S. 160 (1965) 382 U.S. 160

REYNOLDS METALS CO. v. WASHINGTON ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 537.
Decided November 22, 1965.

65 Wash. 2d 882, 400 P.2d 310, appeal dismissed.

DeWitt Williams for appellant.

John J. O'Connell, Attorney General of Washington, and James A. Furber and Henry W. Wager, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE STEWART and MR. JUSTICE WHITE are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.




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