GROVE PRESS, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF KANSAS, James W. Bouska and Herbert W. Walton, Defendants.
LAKESIDE DRIVE IN THEATER, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
Francis D. MENGHINI, Individually and as County Attorney of Wyandotte County, Kansas; O. Q. Claflin, III, Judge of the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, Division 1; Harry G. Miller, Judge of the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, Division 3; Leo J. Moroney, Judge of the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, Division 5; and the State of Kansas, Defendants.
United States District Court D. Kansas.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
December 17, 1969.
December 17, 1969.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Stuart D. Mitchelson, of Pflumm, Mitchelson & Amrein, Shawnee Mission, Kan., Walter J. Kennedy, of Hoskins, King, Springer, McGannon & Hahn, Robert B. Olsen, of Olsen & Talpers and Irving Achtenberg, of Achtenberg, Sandler & Balkin, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff Grove Press, Inc.
Kent Frizzell, Atty. Gen. and Richard H. Seaton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Topeka, Kan., for defendant State of Kansas.
James W. Bouska, County Atty., Olathe, Kan., pro se and for defendant State of Kansas; Bernis G. Terry, Asst. County Atty., Olathe, Kan., for defendants James W. Bouska and State of Kansas.
Eugene T. Hackler and Robert C. Londerholm, of Hackler, Anderson, Londerholm, Speer & Vader, Olathe, Kan., for defendant Herbert W. Walton.
Charles P. Fleming, Jr., Mission, Kan., and Kenneth E. Bigus, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff Lakeside Drive In Theater, Inc.
Francis D. Menghini, County Atty., Kansas City, Kan., pro se, and with Jerome S. Koehler, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Kansas City, Kan., for defendants O. Q. Claflin, III, Harry G. Miller and Leo J. Moroney.
Before HICKEY, Circuit Judge, and STANLEY and THEIS, District Judges.
United States District Court D. Kansas.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff Lakeside Drive In Theater, Inc. moves to alter or amend the judgment entered in this action October 6, 1969, 304 F.Supp. 383, asserting that the court in its opinion did not discuss Lakeside's contention that the state court had allowed inadequate time for preparation for the hearings which preceded the seizure of the films being...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
