KOVRAK v. GINSBURG, 358 U.S. 52 (1958)

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 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.

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 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.

Page 358 U.S. 52, 53

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.