KOVRAK v. GINSBURG, 358 U.S. 52 (1958)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
KOVRAK v. GINSBURG, 358 U.S. 52 (1958) 358 U.S. 52KOVRAK v. GINSBURG ET AL., MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE ON
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF THE LAW.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, EASTERN DISTRICT.
No. 266.
Decided October 20, 1958.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 392 Pa. 143, 139 A.2d 889.
Filindo B. Masino and William B. Ball for appellant.
Robert W. Lees for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Opinions
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF THE LAW.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, EASTERN DISTRICT. No. 266.
Decided October 20, 1958.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 392 Pa. 143, 139 A.2d 889. Filindo B. Masino and William B. Ball for appellant. Robert W. Lees for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Page 358 U.S. 52, 53
U.S. Supreme Court
KOVRAK v. GINSBURG, 358 U.S. 52 (1958) 358 U.S. 52 KOVRAK v. GINSBURG ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ONUNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF THE LAW.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, EASTERN DISTRICT. No. 266.
Decided October 20, 1958.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 392 Pa. 143, 139 A.2d 889. Filindo B. Masino and William B. Ball for appellant. Robert W. Lees for appellees. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Page 358 U.S. 52, 53
Search This Case
