Skip to content


Buckley Vs. Ohio - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number395 U.S. 163
AppellantBuckley
RespondentOhio
Excerpt:
.....v. barbuto, pro se, appellees. per curiam. the motions to dismiss are 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 395 u.s. 163, 164 .....
Judgment:
BUCKLEY v. OHIO - 395 U.S. 163 (1969)
U.S. Supreme Court BUCKLEY v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 163 (1969) 395 U.S. 163

BUCKLEY ET AL., DBA BUCKLEY'S AUTO WRECKING v. OHIO BY BARBUTO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 1209.
Decided May 19, 1969.

16 Ohio St. 2d 128, 243 N. E. 2d 66, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Edward D. Wyner for appellants.

Paul W. Brown, Attorney General of Ohio, pro se, and Robert D. Macklin, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General of Ohio, and James V. Barbuto, pro se, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to dismiss are 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 395 U.S. 163, 164




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