Document: 341 U.S. 491 71 S.Ct. 820 95 L.Ed. 1135 HAMMERSTEINv.SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA et al. No. 421. Argued March 9, 1951. Decided May 28, Mr. Milton A. Rudin, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner. E. Loyd Saunders, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 After argument, we continued this cause to enable the petitioner apply a certificate or other expression from appropriate California courts show whether judgments rested on adequate and independent state grounds decision of federal question was necessary rendered. 1951, 340 622, 521. Such expressions have been obtained. 2 The Supreme Court has informed us that its refusal grant writ certiorari default judgment entered by Superior based upon petitioner's failure utilize proper channel review, namely, his appeal judgment. Inasmuch as our jurisdiction review court extends only final rendered 'by highest State in which could be had,' 28 U.S.C. § 1257, no proceedings arising 3 District Appeal essential denial application prohibition, did not rest an ground. received is also susceptible interpretation hearing We do consider force statement since it clear properly before Appeal, decide question. See American Railway Express Co. v. Levee, 1923, 263 19, 20—21, 44 11, 12, 68 140. over Rescue Army Municipal Court, 1947, 331 549, 565 568, 67 1409, 1417, 1419, 91 1666; Bandini 1931, 284 8 at 14, 52 103, 105, 76 136, cases cited. 4 presence petition does not, course, determine exercise jurisdiction, issuance discretionary. In case obtained adjudication merits appealing apparently refrained taking action because existence remedy. these circumstances think advisable jurisdiction. therefore dismissed improvidently granted. Cf. Loftus Illinois, 1949, 337 935, 69 1511, 93 1741; Phyle Duffy, 1948, 334 431, 1131, 92 1494; Hedgebeth North Carolina, 806, 1185, 1739. 5 Writ dismissed. 6 Justice BLACK, DOUGLAS, JACKSON CLARK dissent.

Category: 8