Skip to content


Nave Vs. City of Seattle - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number385 U.S. 450
AppellantNave
RespondentCity of Seattle
Excerpt:
nave v. city of seattle - 385 u.s. 450 (1967) u.s. supreme court nave v. city of seattle, 385 u.s. 450 (1967) 385 u.s. 450 nave v. city of seattle. appeal from the supreme court of washington. no. 767. decided january 9, 1967. 68 wash. 2d 72, î 415 p.2d 93, appeal dismissed. footnotes [ footnote î ] errata: "72" in "68 wash. 2d 72" should be "721". appellant pro se. a. l. newbould for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. page 385 u.s. 450, 451 kirkpatrick v. preisler, 385 u.s. 450 (1967) 385 u.s. 450 (1967) "> u.s. supreme court kirkpatrick v. preisler, 385 u.s. 450 .....
Judgment:
NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE - 385 U.S. 450 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE, 385 U.S. 450 (1967) 385 U.S. 450

NAVE v. CITY OF SEATTLE.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 767.
Decided January 9, 1967.

68 Wash. 2d 72, î 415 P.2d 93, appeal dismissed.

Footnotes [ Footnote î ] ERRATA: "72" in "68 Wash. 2d 72" should be "721".

Appellant pro se.

A. L. Newbould for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 385 U.S. 450, 451


KIRKPATRICK v. PREISLER, <a href="/101803"> 385 U.S. 450 </a> (1967) 385 U.S. 450 (1967) "> U.S. Supreme Court KIRKPATRICK v. PREISLER, 385 U.S. 450 (1967) 385 U.S. 450

KIRKPATRICK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF MISSOURI, ET AL. v. PREISLER ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MISSOURI. No. 738.
Decided January 9, 1967.

257 F. Supp. 953, affirmed.

Norman H. Anderson, Attorney General of Missouri, and J. Gordon Siddens and Thomas J. Downey, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants.

Paul W. Preisler, pro se, and for other appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set for oral argument.




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