Skip to content


Capelouto Vs. OrkIn Exterminating Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number385 U.S. 11
AppellantCapelouto
RespondentOrkIn Exterminating Co.
Excerpt:
.....from the supreme court of florida. no. 316. decided october 10, 1966. 183 so.2d 532, appeal dismissed. wilfred c. varn for appellant. j. lewis hall for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. maslowsky v. cassidy, 385 u.s. 11 (1966) 385 u.s. 11 (1966) "> u.s. supreme court maslowsky v. cassidy, 385 u.s. 11 (1966) 385 u.s. 11 maslowsky et al. v. cassidy, chairman, illinois house of representatives commission, et al. appeal from the supreme court of illinois. no. 574. decided october 10, 1966. 34 ill. 2d 456, 216 n. e. 2d 669, appeal dismissed. albert e. jenner, jr., and thomas p. sullivan for.....
Judgment:
CAPELOUTO v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO. - 385 U.S. 11 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court CAPELOUTO v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO., 385 U.S. 11 (1966) 385 U.S. 11

CAPELOUTO v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO. OF FLORIDA, INC.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
No. 316.
Decided October 10, 1966.

183 So.2d 532, appeal dismissed.

Wilfred C. Varn for appellant.

J. Lewis Hall for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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


MASLOWSKY v. CASSIDY, <a href="/101324"> 385 U.S. 11 </a> (1966) 385 U.S. 11 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court MASLOWSKY v. CASSIDY, 385 U.S. 11 (1966) 385 U.S. 11

MASLOWSKY ET AL. v. CASSIDY, CHAIRMAN, ILLINOIS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES COMMISSION, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. No. 574.
Decided October 10, 1966.

34 Ill. 2d 456, 216 N. E. 2d 669, appeal dismissed.

Albert E. Jenner, Jr., and Thomas P. Sullivan for appellants.

Owen Rall for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 385 U.S. 11, 12




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