Skip to content


Modern Life Insurance Co. Vs. Wolfman - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number389 U.S. 153
AppellantModern Life Insurance Co.
RespondentWolfman
Excerpt:
modern life insurance co. v. wolfman - 389 u.s. 153 (1967) u.s. supreme court modern life insurance co. v. wolfman, 389 u.s. 153 (1967) 389 u.s. 153 modern life insurance co. v. wolfman. appeal from the supreme judicial court of massachusetts. no. 574. decided november 13, 1967. 352 mass. 356, 225 n. e. 2d 598, appeal dismissed. john m. hall, william e. kelly and preben jenson for appellant. arthur v. getchell for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice harlan would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 28 u.s.c. 1257. in re epstein, 389 u.s. 153 (1967) 389 u.s. 153 (1967) "> u.s. supreme.....
Judgment:
MODERN LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. WOLFMAN - 389 U.S. 153 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court MODERN LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. WOLFMAN, 389 U.S. 153 (1967) 389 U.S. 153

MODERN LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. WOLFMAN.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
No. 574.
Decided November 13, 1967.

352 Mass. 356, 225 N. E. 2d 598, appeal dismissed.

John M. Hall, William E. Kelly and Preben Jenson for appellant.

Arthur V. Getchell for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 1257.


IN RE EPSTEIN, <a href="/101552"> 389 U.S. 153 </a> (1967) 389 U.S. 153 (1967) "> U.S. Supreme Court IN RE EPSTEIN, 389 U.S. 153 (1967) 389 U.S. 153

IN RE EPSTEIN ET AL.
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.
No. 649, Misc.
Decided November 13, 1967.

Motion denied.

Wesley R. Asinof on the motion.

Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of Georgia, and Harold N. Hill, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Maddox, Governor of Georgia, et al., in opposition.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Schackman v. Arnebergh, 387 U.S. 427 .

Page 389 U.S. 153, 154




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