Skip to content


Venable Vs. Texas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number384 U.S. 266
AppellantVenable
RespondentTexas
Excerpt:
.....court of criminal appeals of texas. no. 1196. decided may 23, 1966. 397 s. w. 2d 231, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. william vandercreek for appellant. 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. 266, 267 wylan v. california, 384 u.s. 266 (1966) 384 u.s. 266 (1966) "> u.s. supreme court wylan v. california, 384 u.s. 266 (1966) 384 u.s. 266 wylan v. california. appeal from the appellate department of the superior court of california, county of los angeles. no. 991. decided may 23, 1966. appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. ronald h......
Judgment:
VENABLE v. TEXAS - 384 U.S. 266 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court VENABLE v. TEXAS, 384 U.S. 266 (1966) 384 U.S. 266

VENABLE v. TEXAS.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS.
No. 1196.
Decided May 23, 1966.

397 S. W. 2d 231, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

William VanDercreek for appellant.

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. 266, 267


WYLAN v. CALIFORNIA, <a href="/101377"> 384 U.S. 266 </a> (1966) 384 U.S. 266 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court WYLAN v. CALIFORNIA, 384 U.S. 266 (1966) 384 U.S. 266

WYLAN v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DEPARTMENT OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. No. 991.
Decided May 23, 1966.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Ronald H. Bonaparte and David A. Binder for appellant.

Byron B. Gentry for appellee.

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.

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




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