Skip to content


Kitty Hawk Development Co. Vs. City of Colorado Springs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number379 U.S. 647
AppellantKitty Hawk Development Co.
RespondentCity of Colorado Springs
Excerpt:
.....development co. v. city of colorado springs - 379 u.s. 647 (1965) u.s. supreme court kitty hawk development co. v. city of colorado springs, 379 u.s. 647 (1965) 379 u.s. 647 kitty hawk development co. v. city of colorado springs. appeal from the supreme court of colorado. no. 565. decided january 18, 1965. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. reported below: 154 colo. 535, 392 p.2d 467. e. barrett prettyman, jr., for appellant. louis johnson, charles s. rhyne, brice w. rhyne and alfred j. tighe, jr., 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 a writ of certiorari, certiorari is.....
Judgment:
KITTY HAWK DEVELOPMENT CO. v. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS - 379 U.S. 647 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court KITTY HAWK DEVELOPMENT CO. v. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, 379 U.S. 647 (1965) 379 U.S. 647

KITTY HAWK DEVELOPMENT CO. v. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.
No. 565.
Decided January 18, 1965.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 154 Colo. 535, 392 P.2d 467.

E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., for appellant.

Louis Johnson, Charles S. Rhyne, Brice W. Rhyne and Alfred J. Tighe, Jr., 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 a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.


SHERIDAN v. GARDNER, <a href="/101253"> 379 U.S. 647 </a> (1965) 379 U.S. 647 (1965) "> U.S. Supreme Court SHERIDAN v. GARDNER, 379 U.S. 647 (1965) 379 U.S. 647

SHERIDAN v. GARDNER ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, SUFFOLK COUNTY.
No. 612.
Decided January 18, 1965.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Morris M. Goldings, Francis X. McLaughlin and Thomas J. O'Toole for appellant.

Edward W. Brooke, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and Warren K. Kaplan, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Brooke, and Marshall Simonds for Gardner et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 379 U.S. 647, 648




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