Skip to content


Jones Vs. California - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number394 U.S. 215
AppellantJones
RespondentCalifornia
Excerpt:
jones v. california - 394 u.s. 215 (1969) u.s. supreme court jones v. california, 394 u.s. 215 (1969) 394 u.s. 215 jones v. california. appeal from the court of appeal of california, first appellate district. no. 1072, misc. decided march 10, 1969. 263 cal. app. 2d 818, 70 cal. rptr. 13, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. per curiam. 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. sumrall v. kidd, 394 u.s. 215 (1969) 394 u.s. 215 (1969) "> u.s. supreme court sumrall v. kidd, 394 u.s. 215 (1969) 394 u.s. 215 sumrall v. kidd et al. appeal from the united states district.....
Judgment:
JONES v. CALIFORNIA - 394 U.S. 215 (1969)
U.S. Supreme Court JONES v. CALIFORNIA, 394 U.S. 215 (1969) 394 U.S. 215

JONES v. CALIFORNIA.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT.
No. 1072, Misc.
Decided March 10, 1969.

263 Cal. App. 2d 818, 70 Cal. Rptr. 13, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

PER CURIAM.

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.


SUMRALL v. KIDD, <a href="/102411"> 394 U.S. 215 </a> (1969) 394 U.S. 215 (1969) "> U.S. Supreme Court SUMRALL v. KIDD, 394 U.S. 215 (1969) 394 U.S. 215

SUMRALL v. KIDD ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI. No. 1167, Misc.
Decided March 10, 1969.

Vacated and remanded.

Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner and Elliott C. Lichtman for appellant.

Acting Solicitor General Friedman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Eardley, Morton Hollander, and Robert V. Zener for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the cause is remanded in order that the District Court may enter a fresh decree from which the appellant may, if he wishes, perfect a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals. Moody v. Flowers, 387 U.S. 97 .

Page 394 U.S. 215, 216




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