GAIR v. PECK, 361 U.S. 374 (1960)

U.S. Supreme Court

GAIR v. PECK, 361 U.S. 374 (1960)

361 U.S. 374

GAIR ET AL. v. PECK ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY.
No. 544.
Decided January 25, 1960.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 6 N. Y. 2d 97, 160 N. E. 2d 43.

Howard Hilton Spellman for appellants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, and James O. Moore, 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.


TAYLOR v. TAYLOR, <a href="/cases/federal/us/361/374/case.html">361 U.S. 374</a> (1960) 361 U.S. 374 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

TAYLOR v. TAYLOR, 361 U.S. 374 (1960)

361 U.S. 374

TAYLOR v. TAYLOR.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 552.
Decided January 25, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 185 Kan. 324, 342 P.2d 190.

F. L. Hagaman for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 361 U.S. 374, 375




U.S. Supreme Court

GAIR v. PECK, 361 U.S. 374 (1960)

361 U.S. 374

GAIR ET AL. v. PECK ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK COUNTY.
No. 544.
Decided January 25, 1960.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 6 N. Y. 2d 97, 160 N. E. 2d 43.

Howard Hilton Spellman for appellants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, and James O. Moore, 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.


TAYLOR v. TAYLOR, <a href="/cases/federal/us/361/374/case.html">361 U.S. 374</a> (1960) 361 U.S. 374 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

TAYLOR v. TAYLOR, 361 U.S. 374 (1960)

361 U.S. 374

TAYLOR v. TAYLOR.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS.
No. 552.
Decided January 25, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 185 Kan. 324, 342 P.2d 190.

F. L. Hagaman for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 361 U.S. 374, 375

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.