LOMBARDY v. PETER KIEWIT SONS' CO., 394 U.S. 813 (1969)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
LOMBARDY v. PETER KIEWIT SONS' CO., 394 U.S. 813 (1969) 394 U.S. 813LOMBARDY ET AL. v. PETER KIEWIT SONS'
CO. ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT.
No. 1168.
Decided April 28, 1969.
266 Cal. App. 2d 599, 72 Cal. Rptr. 240, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Hyman Goldman for appellants.
Henry F. Walker for Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., and Jack M. Miller and Robert L. Meyer for the State of California, appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to dismiss are 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.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT.
No. 1168.
Decided April 28, 1969.
266 Cal. App. 2d 599, 72 Cal. Rptr. 240, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Hyman Goldman for appellants. Henry F. Walker for Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., and Jack M. Miller and Robert L. Meyer for the State of California, appellees. PER CURIAM. The motions to dismiss are 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. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 394 U.S. 813, 814
U.S. Supreme Court
LOMBARDY v. PETER KIEWIT SONS' CO., 394 U.S. 813 (1969) 394 U.S. 813 LOMBARDY ET AL. v. PETER KIEWIT SONS' CO. ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT.
No. 1168.
Decided April 28, 1969.
266 Cal. App. 2d 599, 72 Cal. Rptr. 240, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Hyman Goldman for appellants. Henry F. Walker for Peter Kiewit Sons' Co., and Jack M. Miller and Robert L. Meyer for the State of California, appellees. PER CURIAM. The motions to dismiss are 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. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 394 U.S. 813, 814
Search This Case
