Skip to content


Exley Express, Inc. Vs. United States - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number385 U.S. 371
AppellantExley Express, Inc.
RespondentUnited States
Excerpt:
exley express, inc. v. united states - 385 u.s. 371 (1966) u.s. supreme court exley express, inc. v. united states, 385 u.s. 371 (1966) 385 u.s. 371 exley express, inc. v. united states et al. appeal from the united states district court for the district of oregon. no. 644. decided december 12, 1966. affirmed. robert l. holtzclaw and james t. johnson for appellant. solicitor general marshall, assistant attorney general turner, howard e. shapiro and robert w. ginnane for the united states et al.; earle v. white for albany food products, inc., appellees. per curiam. the motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed. laird & co. v. cheney, 385 u.s. 371 (1966) 385 u.s. 371 (1966) "> u.s......
Judgment:
EXLEY EXPRESS, INC. v. UNITED STATES - 385 U.S. 371 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court EXLEY EXPRESS, INC. v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 371 (1966) 385 U.S. 371

EXLEY EXPRESS, INC. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.
No. 644.
Decided December 12, 1966.

Affirmed.

Robert L. Holtzclaw and James T. Johnson for appellant.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro and Robert W. Ginnane for the United States et al.; Earle V. White for Albany Food Products, Inc., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.


LAIRD & CO. v. CHENEY, <a href="/101276"> 385 U.S. 371 </a> (1966) 385 U.S. 371 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court LAIRD & CO. v. CHENEY, 385 U.S. 371 (1966) 385 U.S. 371

LAIRD & CO. ET AL. v. CHENEY, DIRECTOR OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL,
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS. No. 675.
Decided December 12, 1966.

196 Kan. 675, 414 P.2d 18, appeal dismissed.

Harry W. Colmery and Robert E. Russell for appellants.

Robert C. Londerholm, Attorney General of Kansas, and Park McGee, Assistant 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 385 U.S. 371, 372




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