Skip to content


Holden Vs. Arnebergh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number394 U.S. 102
AppellantHolden
RespondentArnebergh
Excerpt:
holden v. arnebergh - 394 u.s. 102 (1969) u.s. supreme court holden v. arnebergh, 394 u.s. 102 (1969) 394 u.s. 102 holden et al. v. arnebergh, city attorney of los angeles, et al. appeal from the court of appeal of california, second appellate district. no. 945. decided march 3, 1969. 265 cal. app. 2d 87, 71 cal. rptr. 401, appeal dismissed. burton marks for appellants. roger arnebergh, pro se, and robert b. burns for appellees. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed, it appearing that the judgment below rests upon an adequate state ground. page 394 u.s. 102, 103
Judgment:
HOLDEN v. ARNEBERGH - 394 U.S. 102 (1969)
U.S. Supreme Court HOLDEN v. ARNEBERGH, 394 U.S. 102 (1969) 394 U.S. 102

HOLDEN ET AL. v. ARNEBERGH, CITY ATTORNEY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT.
No. 945.
Decided March 3, 1969.

265 Cal. App. 2d 87, 71 Cal. Rptr. 401, appeal dismissed.

Burton Marks for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh, pro se, and Robert B. Burns for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed, it appearing that the judgment below rests upon an adequate state ground.

Page 394 U.S. 102, 103




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