Skip to content


Bridges Vs. City of Biloxi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number383 U.S. 574
AppellantBridges
RespondentCity of Biloxi
Excerpt:
.....court of mississippi. no. 923. decided march 21, 1966. 253 miss. 812, 178 so.2d 683, appeal dismissed. upton sisson and forrest b. jackson for appellant. l. arnold pyle and albert sidney johnston, jr., for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. kukich v. serbian eastern orthodox church, pittsburgh, 383 u.s. 574 (1966) 383 u.s. 574 (1966) "> u.s. supreme court kukich v. serbian eastern orthodox church, pittsburgh, 383 u.s. 574 (1966) 383 u.s. 574 kukich et al. v. serbian eastern orthodox church of pittsburgh et al. appeal from the supreme court of pennsylvania. no. 931. decided march 21, 1966. 418 pa. 634,.....
Judgment:
BRIDGES v. CITY OF BILOXI - 383 U.S. 574 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court BRIDGES v. CITY OF BILOXI, 383 U.S. 574 (1966) 383 U.S. 574

BRIDGES v. CITY OF BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI.
No. 923.
Decided March 21, 1966.

253 Miss. 812, 178 So.2d 683, appeal dismissed.

Upton Sisson and Forrest B. Jackson for appellant.

L. Arnold Pyle and Albert Sidney Johnston, Jr., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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


KUKICH v. SERBIAN EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH, PITTSBURGH, <a href="/101440"> 383 U.S. 574 </a> (1966) 383 U.S. 574 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court KUKICH v. SERBIAN EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH, PITTSBURGH, 383 U.S. 574 (1966) 383 U.S. 574

KUKICH ET AL. v. SERBIAN EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF PITTSBURGH ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 931.
Decided March 21, 1966.

418 Pa. 634, 213 A. 2d 80, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Harry Alan Sherman for appellants.

Harry Edward Leas for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and 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 DOUGLAS is of the opinion that in treating the papers as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari should be granted.

Page 383 U.S. 574, 575




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