GREAT COVE REALTY v. BRENNER, 365 U.S. 769 (1961)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
GREAT COVE REALTY v. BRENNER, 365 U.S. 769 (1961) 365 U.S. 769GREAT COVE REALTY CO., INC., ET AL. v.
BRENNER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SUFFOLK
COUNTY, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK,
SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 675.
Decided April 17, 1961.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Reported below: 9 App. Div. 2d 948, 195 N.Y.S.2d 935.
Arthur Karger for appellants.
John P. Cohalan, Jr. for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Opinions
COUNTY, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 675.
Decided April 17, 1961.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Reported below: 9 App. Div. 2d 948, 195 N.Y.S.2d 935. Arthur Karger for appellants. John P. Cohalan, Jr. for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 365 U.S. 769, 770
U.S. Supreme Court
GREAT COVE REALTY v. BRENNER, 365 U.S. 769 (1961) 365 U.S. 769 GREAT COVE REALTY CO., INC., ET AL. v. BRENNER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SUFFOLKCOUNTY, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 675.
Decided April 17, 1961.
Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Reported below: 9 App. Div. 2d 948, 195 N.Y.S.2d 935. Arthur Karger for appellants. John P. Cohalan, Jr. for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 365 U.S. 769, 770
Search This Case
