EDELL v. MACK 379 U.S. 5 (1964)

United States Supreme Court

EDELL v. MACK (1964)

No. 145

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, <flCite id="/us-supreme-court/379/5#">379 U.S. 5 </flCite> (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.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network