Skip to content


Greenwald Vs. Maryland - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number363 U.S. 721
AppellantGreenwald
RespondentMaryland
Excerpt:
..... appeal from the court of appeals of maryland. no. 920. decided june 20, 1960. appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question. reported below: 221 md. 245, 157 a. 2d 119. harry silbert, a. jerome diener and sidney schlachman for appellant. c. ferdinand sybert, attorney general of maryland, stedman prescott, jr., deputy attorney general, and james h. norris, jr., special assistant attorney general, for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question. page 363 u.s. 721, 1
Judgment:
GREENWALD v. MARYLAND - 363 U.S. 721 (1960)
U.S. Supreme Court GREENWALD v. MARYLAND, 363 U.S. 721 (1960) 363 U.S. 721

GREENWALD v. MARYLAND.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 920.
Decided June 20, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question.

Reported below: 221 Md. 245, 157 A. 2d 119.

Harry Silbert, A. Jerome Diener and Sidney Schlachman for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 363 U.S. 721, 1




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