Contracts · MBE-tested
MOSES et al. v. WASHINGTON et al.
389 U.S. 428·Supreme Court of the United States·1967
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
MOSES et al. v. WASHINGTON et al.
No. 246.
Decided December 18, 1967.
L. Frederick Paul and Frederick W. Post for appellants.
James E. Kennedy and J. L. Coniff, Special Assistant Attorneys General of Washington, for appellees.
Solicitor General Griswold for the United States, as amicus curiae.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam. Mr. Justice Douglas]
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is 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.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.