Skip to content


Seacat Marine Drilling Co. Vs. Babineaux - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number382 U.S. 16
AppellantSeacat Marine Drilling Co.
RespondentBabineaux
Excerpt:
seacat marine drilling co. v. babineaux - 382 u.s. 16 (1965) u.s. supreme court seacat marine drilling co. v. babineaux, 382 u.s. 16 (1965) 382 u.s. 16 seacat marine drilling co. et al. v. babineaux. appeal from the court of appeal of louisiana, third circuit. no. 283. decided october 11, 1965. 170 so.2d 518, appeal dismissed. marian mayer berkett for appellants. per curiam. the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice harlan is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. page 382 u.s. 16, 17 berry v. state tax commission, 382 u.s. 16 (1965) 382 u.s. 16 (1965) "> u.s. supreme court berry v. state tax commission, 382.....
Judgment:
SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. v. BABINEAUX - 382 U.S. 16 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. v. BABINEAUX, 382 U.S. 16 (1965) 382 U.S. 16

SEACAT MARINE DRILLING CO. ET AL. v. BABINEAUX.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, THIRD CIRCUIT.
No. 283.
Decided October 11, 1965.

170 So.2d 518, appeal dismissed.

Marian Mayer Berkett for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Page 382 U.S. 16, 17


BERRY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, <a href="/101090"> 382 U.S. 16 </a> (1965) 382 U.S. 16 (1965) "> U.S. Supreme Court BERRY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, 382 U.S. 16 (1965) 382 U.S. 16

BERRY v. STATE TAX COMMISSION.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON.
No. 229.
Decided October 11, 1965.

241 Ore. 580, 397 P.2d 780, 399 P.2d 164, appeal dismissed.

Robert N. Gygi for appellant.

Robert Y. Thornton, Attorney General of Oregon, and John C. Mull and Carlisle B. Roberts, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.




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