Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Board of Public Works v. Horace Mann League of United States of America, Inc.

385 U.S. 97

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1966-11-14
Topic
bankruptcy

Per Curiam. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 473 is denied. The motion to dismiss in No. 590 is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Board of Public Works v. Horace Mann League of United States of America, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
BOARD PUBLIC WORKS, MARYLANDv. HORACE MANN LEAGUE,385 U.S. 97(1966)
BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF MARYLAND ET AL.v. HORACE MANN LEAGUE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 473.
Decided November 14, 1966.fn*
242 Md. 645,220 A.2d 51, certiorari denied in No. 473: appeal dismissed in No. 590.Page 98
Thomas B. Finan, former Attorney General of Maryland. for the Board of Public Works of Maryland, andWilliam L. Marburyfor Saint Joseph College et al., petitioners in No. 473.Leo Pfefferfor appellants in No. 590.Robert C. Murphy, Attorney General of Maryland, andEdward L. Blanton, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the Board of Public Works of Maryland, andParsonsNewmanfor Hood College, appellees in No. 590.John Holt Myersfor the Association of American Colleges, asamicus curiae, in support of the petition in No. 473.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 473 is denied. The motion to dismiss in No. 590 is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART are of the opinion that in No. 473 certiorari should be granted and the case set for plenary consideration, and that in No. 590 probable jurisdiction should be noted and the case set down for oral argument.
  1. Page 97 Together with No. 590,Horace Mann League of the United Statesof America, Inc., et al. v.Board of Public Works of Maryland et al.,on appeal from the same court. ↩