WARREN
v.
LARSON, STATE TREASURER

U.S. | 1962-04-16
No. 920
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted., Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
369 U.S. 427 Supreme Court of the United States (1962) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

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

Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sholkoff v. Boca Raton Cmty. Hosp., Inc., 693 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
    …ided in an applicable statute. See Hampton’s Estate v. Fairchild-Florida Const. Inc., 341 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1976); Campbell v. Maze 339 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1976); Kittel v. Kittel, 210 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1968); Larson v. Warren, 132 So. 2d 177, appeal dism’d, 369 U.S. 427, 82 S.Ct. 879, 8 L.Ed.2d 7 (1962); State ex rel. Hartford Acc. & Indemn. Co. v. Johnson, 118 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1960); Codorno v. Emanuel, 91 So. 2d 653 (Fla.1956); Shavers v. Duval County, 73 So. 2d 684 (Fla.1954); Phoenix Indemn. Co. v. Union Finance…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw