Skip to content


Stadler Vs. State Board of Equalization of California - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number380 U.S. 252
AppellantStadler
RespondentState Board of Equalization of California
Excerpt:
stadler v. state board of equalization of california - 380 u.s. 252 (1965) u.s. supreme court stadler v. state board of equalization of california, 380 u.s. 252 (1965) 380 u.s. 252 stadler et al., executors v. state board of equalization of california. appeal from the district court of appeal of california, second appellate district. no. 797. decided march 8, 1965. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below. 227 cal. app. 2d 314, 38 cal. rptr. 587. theodore w. russell and r. y. schureman for appellants. thomas c. lynch, attorney general of california, dan kaufman, assistant attorney general, and neal j. gobar, deputy attorney general, for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is.....
Judgment:
STADLER v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA - 380 U.S. 252 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court STADLER v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA, 380 U.S. 252 (1965) 380 U.S. 252

STADLER ET AL., EXECUTORS v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION OF CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 797.
Decided March 8, 1965.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below. 227 Cal. App. 2d 314, 38 Cal. Rptr. 587.

Theodore W. Russell and R. Y. Schureman for appellants.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufman, Assistant Attorney General, and Neal J. Gobar, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 380 U.S. 252, 253




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