Dill v. Colorado

292 U.S. 609, 54 S. Ct. 781
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided May 21, 1934·No. No. 991·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Rosenberg v. Wisconsin, 290 U.S. 600, 601; Mueller v. Illinois, 289 U.S. 711; Leach v. California, 287 U.S. 579, 590; Lavine v. California, 286 U.S. 528; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 393; Bandini v. [610] Superior Court, 284 U.S. 8, 18; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 501-503. Insofar as the papers whereon the appeal was allowed seek review in respect of asserted denial of rights under the Federal Constitution by rulings of the Supreme Court of Colorado not involving the validity of any statute of the state, such papers are treated as a petition for writ of certiorari (§ 237 (c), Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 936, 938), and certiorari is denied.

Mr. Charles Ginsberg for appellant. Mr. Paul P. Prosser for appellee.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dill v. Colorado, 292 U.S. 609, 54 S. Ct. 781 (1934).

292 U.S. 609 (Dill v. Colorado) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sproles v. Binford
286 U.S. 374 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman
266 U.S. 497 (Supreme Court, 1925)
Lavine v. California
286 U.S. 528 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Leach v. California
287 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1933)
Mueller v. Illinois
289 U.S. 711 (Supreme Court, 1933)
Rosenberg v. Wisconsin
290 U.S. 600 (Supreme Court, 1933)