Skip to content


Reed Vs. Illinois - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number385 U.S. 10
AppellantReed
Respondentillinois
Excerpt:
.....of illinois. no. 282. decided october 10, 1966. 33 ill. 2d 535, 213 n. e. 2d 278, appeal dismissed. mort a. segall for appellant. william g. clark, attorney general of illinois, and richard a. michael and philip j. rock, 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. treffry v. taylor, 385 u.s. 10 (1966) 385 u.s. 10 (1966) "> u.s. supreme court treffry v. taylor, 385 u.s. 10 (1966) 385 u.s. 10 treffry et al. v. taylor, director of licenses for the state of washington, et al. appeal from the supreme court of washington. no. 291. decided october 10, 1966. 67 wash. 2d 487, 408.....
Judgment:
REED v. ILLINOIS - 385 U.S. 10 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court REED v. ILLINOIS, 385 U.S. 10 (1966) 385 U.S. 10

REED v. ILLINOIS.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 282.
Decided October 10, 1966.

33 Ill. 2d 535, 213 N. E. 2d 278, appeal dismissed.

Mort A. Segall for appellant.

William G. Clark, Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard A. Michael and Philip J. Rock, 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.


TREFFRY v. TAYLOR, <a href="/101323"> 385 U.S. 10 </a> (1966) 385 U.S. 10 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court TREFFRY v. TAYLOR, 385 U.S. 10 (1966) 385 U.S. 10

TREFFRY ET AL. v. TAYLOR, DIRECTOR OF LICENSES FOR THE STATE OF
WASHINGTON, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON. No. 291.
Decided October 10, 1966.

67 Wash. 2d 487, 408 P.2d 269, appeal dismissed.

Francis J. Conklin for appellants.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 385 U.S. 10, 11




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