BOEING AIRCRAFT CO.
v.
KING COUNTY ET AL.
BOEING AIRCRAFT CO.
KING COUNTY ET AL.
330 U.S. 803
Supreme Court of the United States (1947)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:
In No. 1027, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. § 237 (a), Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 344 (a). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was allowed as a petition for writ of certiorari as required by § 237 (c) of the Judicial Code, as amended, 28 U. S. C. § 344 (c), certiorari is denied. In No. 1028, the appeal is dismissed for the reason that application therefor was not made within the time provided by law. § 8 (a), Act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 940), 28 U. S. C. § 350.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962)…that case was not brought to the Court until after the election had been held, the Court cited not only Wood v. Broom, but also directed dismissal for mootness, citing Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216. Compare Boeing Aircraft Co. v. King County, 330 U. S. 803 (“the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction”). See Coleman v. Miller, 307 U. S. 433, 440. Matthews did affirm, a judgment that may be read as a dismissal for want of jurisdiction, 179 F. Supp. 470. However, the motion to affirm also rested o…