GLUCKSTERN v. NEW YORK, 371 U.S. 69 (1962)
GLUCKSTERN v. NEW YORK. U.S. Supreme Court
GLUCKSTERN v. NEW YORK, 371 U.S. 69 (1962)
371 U.S. 69
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 564, Misc.
Decided November 5, 1962.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD v. UNITED STATES, 371 U.S. 69 (1962) 371 U.S. 69 CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 360.
Decided November 5, 1962.
Frank F. Vesper for appellants.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Robert B. Hummel, Irwin A. Seibel, Robert W. Ginnane and Fritz R. Kahn for the United States et al.
William J. O'Brien, Jr., Richard J. Murphy and Robert H. Bierma for rail carrier appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS would note probable jurisdiction.
U.S. Supreme Court
GLUCKSTERN v. NEW YORK, 371 U.S. 69 (1962)
371 U.S. 69 GLUCKSTERN v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW YORK, FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT. No. 564, Misc.
Decided November 5, 1962.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Page 371 U.S. 69, 70
U.S. Supreme Court
CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD v. UNITED STATES, 371 U.S. 69 (1962) 371 U.S. 69 CHICAGO & EASTERN ILLINOIS RAILROAD CO. ET AL. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. No. 360.
Decided November 5, 1962.
Frank F. Vesper for appellants.
Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Loevinger, Robert B. Hummel, Irwin A. Seibel, Robert W. Ginnane and Fritz R. Kahn for the United States et al.
William J. O'Brien, Jr., Richard J. Murphy and Robert H. Bierma for rail carrier appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS would note probable jurisdiction.
