Skip to content


Helm Vs. Arizona - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number362 U.S. 609
AppellantHelm
RespondentArizona
Excerpt:
helm v. arizona - 362 u.s. 609 (1960) u.s. supreme court helm v. arizona, 362 u.s. 609 (1960) 362 u.s. 609 helm et al. v. arizona. appeal from the supreme court of arizona. no. 768. decided may 16, 1960. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 86 ariz. 275, 345 p.2d 202. irving a. jennings for appellants. wade church, attorney general of arizona, leslie c. hardy, chief assistant attorney general, and jay dushoff, assistant attorney general, for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. page 362 u.s. 609, 610
Judgment:
HELM v. ARIZONA - 362 U.S. 609 (1960)
U.S. Supreme Court HELM v. ARIZONA, 362 U.S. 609 (1960) 362 U.S. 609

HELM ET AL. v. ARIZONA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA.
No. 768.
Decided May 16, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 86 Ariz. 275, 345 P.2d 202.

Irving A. Jennings for appellants.

Wade Church, Attorney General of Arizona, Leslie C. Hardy, Chief Assistant Attorney General, and Jay Dushoff, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 362 U.S. 609, 610




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