AMPCO PRINTING-ADVERTISERS' OFFSET CORP. v. CITY, N. YORK

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Supreme Court

EDELL v. MACK, (1964)

No. 145

Argued:     Decided: October 12, 1964

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 13 N. Y. 2d 1001, 195 N. E. 2d 58.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. [379 U.S. 5, 6]  


AMPCO PRINTING-ADVERTISERS' OFFSET CORP. v. CITY, N. YORK, <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/379/5.html">379 U.S. 5 </a> (1964) 379 U.S. 5 (1964) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

AMPCO PRINTING-ADVERTISERS' OFFSET CORP. v. CITY, N. YORK, 379 U.S. 5 (1964)

379 U.S. 5

AMPCO PRINTING-ADVERTISERS' OFFSET CORP. ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 152.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 14 N. Y. 2d 11, 197 N. E. 2d 285.

Harold Riegelman and H. H. Nordlinger for appellants.

Leo A. Larkin, Stanley Buchsbaum and Samuel J. Warms for the City of New York et al., and Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Gustave Soderberg, Assistant Attorney General, for Lefkowitz, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More