Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 390 Pa. 161, 134 A.2d 662.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S.
(Mar 17, 1958)
Copy Cite
356 U.S. 43
Case Information
Smart Summary (Beta)
Forman et ux. v. Apfel, Liquidating Receiver, et al.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, in the case styled Forman et ux. v. Apfel, Liquidating Receiver, et al.
The case was reported below at 390 Pa. 161, 134 A.2d 662. The appellants sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court, and a motion to dismiss the appeal was filed. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a brief per curiam disposition dated March 17, 1958, addressed only the procedural status of the appeal and did not provide further factual background or detail regarding the underlying dispute.
Legal Issues Presented
The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court issued a per curiam opinion consisting of a single, dispositive statement: it granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."
From the text provided, the Court did not elaborate on the nature of the federal question presented, nor did it analyze the merits of the underlying dispute or the reasoning of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Instead, the Court's reasoning is limited to its implicit determination that the case failed to raise a sufficiently substantial federal issue to warrant the Court's appellate jurisdiction or further review.
In effect, the Court concluded that the federal questions asserted by the appellants did not meet the threshold of substantiality required for the Supreme Court to entertain the appeal, and therefore it terminated the proceedings at that jurisdictional or screening stage. No additional doctrinal analysis, statutory interpretation, or constitutional discussion is included in the opinion as provided.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court's holding is succinctly stated:
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
The direct consequence of this decision is that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, reported at 390 Pa. 161, 134 A.2d 662, remains in effect and is not disturbed or reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellants receive no relief from the federal high court, and the state court's disposition is final as to them.
The opinion does not discuss any broader legal implications, articulate any new legal standards, or rely on or create any precedent. It functions solely as a brief procedural disposition indicating that the case does not present a substantial federal question warranting review.
Show full summary ...
FORMAN ET UX. v. APFEL, LIQUIDATING RECEIVER, ET AL.
This is a paid feature.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.
Size
= Directly proportional to the number of citations
Color = Jurisdiction
U.S. Supreme Court
State Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
District Courts
Line Incoming
= Cited by Outgoing =
Cites
Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Comments