STEINBECK v. GEROSA, 358 U.S. 39 (1958)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
STEINBECK v. GEROSA, 358 U.S. 39 (1958) 358 U.S. 39STEINBECK v. GEROSA, COMPTROLLER OF NEW
YORK CITY, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 294.
Decided October 13, 1958.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 4 N.Y.2d 302, 151 N.E.2d 170.
Irwin Karp for appellant.
Peter Campbell Brown and Stanley Buchsbaum for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 294.
Decided October 13, 1958.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 4 N.Y.2d 302, 151 N.E.2d 170. Irwin Karp for appellant. Peter Campbell Brown and Stanley Buchsbaum for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE BLACK is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 358 U.S. 39, 40
U.S. Supreme Court
STEINBECK v. GEROSA, 358 U.S. 39 (1958) 358 U.S. 39 STEINBECK v. GEROSA, COMPTROLLER OF NEW YORK CITY, ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 294.
Decided October 13, 1958.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 4 N.Y.2d 302, 151 N.E.2d 170. Irwin Karp for appellant. Peter Campbell Brown and Stanley Buchsbaum for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE BLACK is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 358 U.S. 39, 40
Search This Case
