McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, 379 U.S. 133 (1964)
Decided:
November 23, 1964
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, 379 U.S. 133 (1964) 379 U.S. 133McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 472.
Decided November 23, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 61 Cal. 2d 186, 390 P.2d 412.
Walter L. Nossaman for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufmann, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest P. Goodman and Harry W. Low, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 472.
Decided November 23, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 61 Cal. 2d 186, 390 P.2d 412. Walter L. Nossaman for appellant. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufmann, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest P. Goodman and Harry W. Low, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Page 379 U.S. 133, 134
U.S. Supreme Court
McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, 379 U.S. 133 (1964) 379 U.S. 133 McCULLOCH v. CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA.
No. 472.
Decided November 23, 1964.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 61 Cal. 2d 186, 390 P.2d 412. Walter L. Nossaman for appellant. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General of California, Dan Kaufmann, Assistant Attorney General, and Ernest P. Goodman and Harry W. Low, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Page 379 U.S. 133, 134
Search This Case
