Skip to content


United States Vs. Haley - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number358 U.S. 644
AppellantUnited States
RespondentHaley
Excerpt:
united states v. haley - 358 u.s. 644 (1959) u.s. supreme court united states v. haley, 358 u.s. 644 (1959) 358 u.s. 644 united states v. haley. appeal from the united states district court for the northern district of texas. no. 587. decided february 24, 1959. 166 f. supp. 336, reversed. solicitor general rankin, assistant attorney general hansen, charles h. weston, r. l. farrington, neil brooks and donald a. campbell for the united states. william f. billings, james p. donovan and daniel l. o'connor for appellee. per curiam. the judgment is reversed. wickard v. filburn, 317 u.s. 111 . landman v. miedzinski, 358 u.s. 644 (1959) 358 u.s. 644 (1959) "> u.s. supreme court landman v......
Judgment:
UNITED STATES v. HALEY - 358 U.S. 644 (1959)
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. HALEY, 358 U.S. 644 (1959) 358 U.S. 644

UNITED STATES v. HALEY.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT
OF TEXAS. No. 587.
Decided February 24, 1959.

166 F. Supp. 336, reversed.

Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Hansen, Charles H. Weston, R. L. Farrington, Neil Brooks and Donald A. Campbell for the United States.

William F. Billings, James P. Donovan and Daniel L. O'Connor for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is reversed. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 .


LANDMAN v. MIEDZINSKI, <a href="/99737"> 358 U.S. 644 </a> (1959) 358 U.S. 644 (1959) "> U.S. Supreme Court LANDMAN v. MIEDZINSKI, 358 U.S. 644 (1959) 358 U.S. 644

LANDMAN ET AL. v. MIEDZINSKI, SHERIFF, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 589.
Decided February 24, 1959.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 218 Md. 3, 145 A. 2d 220.

F. Joseph Donohue and Harold C. Faulkner for appellants.

C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General of Maryland, Stedman Prescott, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and James H. Norris, Jr. for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 358 U.S. 644, 645




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