KRASNOV v. UNITED STATES, 355 U.S. 5 (1957)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

KRASNOV v. UNITED STATES, 355 U.S. 5 (1957)

355 U.S. 5

KRASNOV ET AL. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA. No. 238.
Decided October 14, 1957.*

 143 F. Supp. 184, affirmed.

[Footnote *] Together with No. 254, Comfy Manufacturing Co. et al. v. United States, and No. 255, Oppenheimer v. United States, also on appeals from the same court.

C. Brewster Rhoads for appellants in No. 238.

Robert L. Wright and Milton M. Gottesman for appellants in No. 254.

Joseph F. Padlon for appellant in No. 255.

Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Daniel M. Friedman and Joseph F. Tubridy for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 355 U.S. 5, 6

 


U.S. Supreme Court

KRASNOV v. UNITED STATES, 355 U.S. 5 (1957)

355 U.S. 5

KRASNOV ET AL. v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA. No. 238.
Decided October 14, 1957.*

 143 F. Supp. 184, affirmed.

[Footnote *] Together with No. 254, Comfy Manufacturing Co. et al. v. United States, and No. 255, Oppenheimer v. United States, also on appeals from the same court.

C. Brewster Rhoads for appellants in No. 238.

Robert L. Wright and Milton M. Gottesman for appellants in No. 254.

Joseph F. Padlon for appellant in No. 255.

Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Daniel M. Friedman and Joseph F. Tubridy for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 355 U.S. 5, 6

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.