BUCKLEY v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 163 (1969)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
BUCKLEY v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 163 (1969) 395 U.S. 163BUCKLEY ET AL., DBA BUCKLEY'S AUTO
WRECKING v. OHIO BY BARBUTO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 1209.
Decided May 19, 1969.
16 Ohio St. 2d 128, 243 N.E.2d 66, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Edward D. Wyner for appellants.
Paul W. Brown, Attorney General of Ohio, pro se, and Robert D. Macklin, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General of Ohio, and James V. Barbuto, pro se, 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.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 1209.
Decided May 19, 1969.
16 Ohio St. 2d 128, 243 N.E.2d 66, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Edward D. Wyner for appellants. Paul W. Brown, Attorney General of Ohio, pro se, and Robert D. Macklin, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General of Ohio, and James V. Barbuto, pro se, 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. Page 395 U.S. 163, 164
U.S. Supreme Court
BUCKLEY v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 163 (1969) 395 U.S. 163 BUCKLEY ET AL., DBA BUCKLEY'S AUTO WRECKING v. OHIO BY BARBUTO.APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 1209.
Decided May 19, 1969.
16 Ohio St. 2d 128, 243 N.E.2d 66, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Edward D. Wyner for appellants. Paul W. Brown, Attorney General of Ohio, pro se, and Robert D. Macklin, Assistant Attorney General, for the Attorney General of Ohio, and James V. Barbuto, pro se, 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. Page 395 U.S. 163, 164
Search This Case
