DUNLAP ET AL.
v.
OHIO
DUNLAP ET AL.
OHIO
375 U.S. 42
Supreme Court of the United States (1963)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Miller, 367 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1966)…idely publicized burnings of draft cards occurring in demonstrations against this country’s Vietnam policy.9 But neither does that control disposition of the case. People v. Stover, 12 N.Y.2d 462, 240 N.Y.S.2d 734, 191 N.E. 2d 272, appeal dismissed, 375 U.S. 42, 84 S.Ct. 147, 11 L.Ed.2d 107 (1963), involved a bizarre display of offensive objects on a clothesline in a residential area to protest high property taxes. Thereafter, the City of Rye enacted an ordinance which, in effect, prohibited clotheslines i…1 / 2
-
Howard v. The State Dep't OF Highways OF Colo., 478 F.2d 581 (10th Cir. 1973)…, 31 N.Y.2d 262, 290 N.E. 2d 139; Ghaster Properties, Inc. v. Preston, 176 Ohio St. 425, 200 N.E. 2d 328 (Ohio). And see People v. Stover, 12 N.Y.2d 462, 240 N.Y.S.2d 734, 191 N.E. 2d 272, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 375 U.S. 42, 84 S.Ct. 147, 11 L.Ed.2d 107. . We have examined the jurisdictional statement in the Markham, case. In presenting the constitutional issues to the Supreme Court of the United States, the statement included the constitutional claims mentioned above…