King v. Preterm, Inc.
448 U.S. 901, 100 S. Ct. 3039
Opinion
Appeal from C. A. 1st Cir. dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Rehnquist, being of the view that the order of the Court of Appeals “amending its mandate” to embrace the invalidation of an entirely separate statute is not governed by FTC v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Co., 344 U. S. 206 (1952), dissents from dismissal of the appeal and would note probable jurisdiction and set case for oral argument.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
King v. Preterm, Inc., 448 U.S. 901, 100 S. Ct. 3039 (1980).
448 U.S. 901 (King v. Preterm, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
National Expositions, Inc. v. Crowley Maritime Corporation
824 F.2d 131 (First Circuit, 1987)
A.L. Adams Construction Co. v. Georgia Power Co.
557 F. Supp. 168 (S.D. Georgia, 1983)