Skip to content


Rhoades Vs. School District of Abington Township - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number389 U.S. 11
AppellantRhoades
RespondentSchool District of Abington Township
Excerpt:
.....court of pennsylvania. no. 225. decided october 9, 1967. 424 pa. 202, 226 a. 2d 53, appeal dismissed. franklin c. salisbury for appellants. william c. sennett, attorney general of pennsylvania, john p. mccord, deputy attorney general, and edward friedman for the commonwealth of pennsylvania, and william b. ball for paul et al., appellees. per curiam. the motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice douglas is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. hohensee v. minear, 389 u.s. 11 (1967) 389 u.s. 11 (1967) "> u.s. supreme court hohensee v. minear, 389 u.s. 11 (1967) 389 u.s. 11 hohensee et al. v. minear. appeal.....
Judgment:
RHOADES v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP - 389 U.S. 11 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court RHOADES v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP, 389 U.S. 11 (1967) 389 U.S. 11

RHOADES ET AL. v. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON TOWNSHIP ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA.
No. 225.
Decided October 9, 1967.

424 Pa. 202, 226 A. 2d 53, appeal dismissed.

Franklin C. Salisbury for appellants.

William C. Sennett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, John P. McCord, Deputy Attorney General, and Edward Friedman for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and William B. Ball for Paul et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.


HOHENSEE v. MINEAR, <a href="/101590"> 389 U.S. 11 </a> (1967) 389 U.S. 11 (1967) "> U.S. Supreme Court HOHENSEE v. MINEAR, 389 U.S. 11 (1967) 389 U.S. 11

HOHENSEE ET AL. v. MINEAR.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 190, Misc.
Decided October 9, 1967.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Jo V. Morgan, Jr., for appellee.

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.

Page 389 U.S. 11, 12




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