Categories: 1969

Holden v. Arnebergh, 394 U.S. 102 (1969)

394 U.S. 102
89 S.Ct. 926
22 L.Ed.2d 112

Eugene HOLDEN et al.
v.
Roger ARNEBERGH, City Attorney, Los Angeles, et al.

No. 945.
Supreme Court of the United States
March 3, 1969

Counsel:

Burton Marks, for appellants.

Roger Arnebergh, pro se, and Robert B. Burns, for appellees.

[hr]

PER CURIAM.

1

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed, it appearing that the judgment below rests upon an adequate state ground.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 394 U.S. 102

Recent Posts

WINTERBOTTOM v. WRIGHT, 152 Eng. Rep. 402 (Ex. 1842).

WINTERBOTTOM v. WRIGHT In the Exchequer, June 6, 1842. Reported in 10 Meeson & Welsby,…

4 weeks ago

YU v. POZNIAK-RICE, Cal. App. No. B337415 (July 21, 2025)

Filed 7/21/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

5 months ago

WING INFLATABLES, INC. v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, Cal. App. No. A173263 (July 21, 2025)

Filed 7/21/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA…

5 months ago

NASRALLAH v. BARR, 590 U.S. 573 (2020)

140 S.Ct. 1683 (2020)590 U.S. 573 Nidal Khalid NASRALLAH, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney…

7 months ago

THOLE v. U.S. BANK N.A., 590 U.S. 538

140 S.Ct. 1615 (2020)590 US 538207 L. Ed. 2d 85 James J. THOLE, et al.,…

7 months ago

BANISTER v. DAVIS, 590 U.S. 504

140 S.Ct. 1698 (2020)590 U.S. 504 Gregory Dean BANISTER, Petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas…

7 months ago