PEKAO TRADING CORP. v. BRAGALINI, 364 U.S. 478 (1960)

U.S. Supreme Court

PEKAO TRADING CORP. v. BRAGALINI, 364 U.S. 478 (1960)

364 U.S. 478

PEKAO TRADING CORP. v. BRAGALINI ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 483.
Decided December 5, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 8 N. Y. 2d 903, 168 N. E. 2d 823.

Arthur C. Fink for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER would note probable jurisdiction and hear the case, the more so inasmuch as the transactions which New York has taxed concerned foreign commerce, unlike those which were involved in Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is also of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 364 U.S. 478, 479




U.S. Supreme Court

PEKAO TRADING CORP. v. BRAGALINI, 364 U.S. 478 (1960)

364 U.S. 478

PEKAO TRADING CORP. v. BRAGALINI ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 483.
Decided December 5, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 8 N. Y. 2d 903, 168 N. E. 2d 823.

Arthur C. Fink for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER would note probable jurisdiction and hear the case, the more so inasmuch as the transactions which New York has taxed concerned foreign commerce, unlike those which were involved in Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is also of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 364 U.S. 478, 479

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.