Skip to content


Wometco Television and theatre Co. Vs. United States - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number355 U.S. 40
AppellantWometco Television and theatre Co.
RespondentUnited States
Excerpt:
wometco television & theatre co. v. united states - 355 u.s. 40 (1957) u.s. supreme court wometco television & theatre co. v. united states, 355 u.s. 40 (1957) 355 u.s. 40 wometco television & theatre co. v. united states et al. appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of new york. no. 438. decided november 12, 1957. judgment affirmed. monroe e. stein and richard f. wolfson for appellant. solicitor general rankin, assistant attorney general hansen and charles h. weston for the united states, and albert r. connelly for the miami beach theatre corporation, appellees. per curiam. the motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed. swift v. borough of bethel, 355 u.s. 40 .....
Judgment:
WOMETCO TELEVISION & THEATRE CO. v. UNITED STATES - 355 U.S. 40 (1957)
U.S. Supreme Court WOMETCO TELEVISION & THEATRE CO. v. UNITED STATES, 355 U.S. 40 (1957) 355 U.S. 40

WOMETCO TELEVISION & THEATRE CO. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK. No. 438.
Decided November 12, 1957.

Judgment affirmed.

Monroe E. Stein and Richard F. Wolfson for appellant.

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen and Charles H. Weston for the United States, and Albert R. Connelly for the Miami Beach Theatre Corporation, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.


SWIFT v. BOROUGH OF BETHEL, <a href="/99178"> 355 U.S. 40 </a> (1957) 355 U.S. 40 (1957) "> U.S. Supreme Court SWIFT v. BOROUGH OF BETHEL, 355 U.S. 40 (1957) 355 U.S. 40

SWIFT ET AL., TRUSTEES OF THE CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, BETHEL
UNIT, v. BOROUGH OF BETHEL, PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. No. 437.
Decided November 12, 1957.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 183 Pa. Super. 219, 130 A. 2d 240.

Hayden C. Covington for appellants.

Arthur W. Henderson for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 355 U.S. 40, 41




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