Skip to content


Lambright Vs. California - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number384 U.S. 434
AppellantLambright
RespondentCalifornia
Excerpt:
.....of california, fourth appellate district. no. 1408, misc. decided june 6, 1966. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. per curiam. 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. page 384 u.s. 434, 435 double eagle lubricants v. texas, 384 u.s. 434 (1966) 384 u.s. 434 (1966) "> u.s. supreme court double eagle lubricants v. texas, 384 u.s. 434 (1966) 384 u.s. 434 double eagle lubricants, inc. v. texas. appeal from the united states district court for the northern district of texas. no. 1177. decided june 6, 1966. 248 f. supp. 515, appeal dismissed. john b. ogden for.....
Judgment:
LAMBRIGHT v. CALIFORNIA - 384 U.S. 434 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court LAMBRIGHT v. CALIFORNIA, 384 U.S. 434 (1966) 384 U.S. 434

LAMBRIGHT v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT. No. 1408, Misc.
Decided June 6, 1966.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

PER CURIAM.

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.

Page 384 U.S. 434, 435


DOUBLE EAGLE LUBRICANTS v. TEXAS, <a href="/101366"> 384 U.S. 434 </a> (1966) 384 U.S. 434 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court DOUBLE EAGLE LUBRICANTS v. TEXAS, 384 U.S. 434 (1966) 384 U.S. 434

DOUBLE EAGLE LUBRICANTS, INC. v. TEXAS.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
TEXAS. No. 1177.
Decided June 6, 1966.

248 F. Supp. 515, appeal dismissed.

John B. Ogden for appellant.

Waggoner Carr, Attorney General of Texas, Hawthorne Phillips, First Assistant Attorney General, T. B. Wright, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Howard M. Fender, Lonny F. Zwiener and Robert W. Norris, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Swift & Co., Inc. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111 , and Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 382 U.S. 281 .




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