EDELL v. MACK
379 U.S. 5 (1964)

 Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

EDELL v. MACK, 379 U.S. 5 (1964)

379 U.S. 5

EDELL v. MACK ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 145, Misc.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 13 N. Y. 2d 1001, 195 N. E. 2d 58.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 379 U.S. 5, 6

AMPCO PRINTING-ADVERTISERS' OFFSET CORP. v. CITY, N. YORK, <a href="/cases/federal/us/379/5/case.html">379 U.S. 5</a> (1964) 379 U.S. 5 (1964) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

AMPCO PRINTING-ADVERTISERS' OFFSET CORP. v. CITY, N. YORK, 379 U.S. 5 (1964)

379 U.S. 5

AMPCO PRINTING-ADVERTISERS' OFFSET CORP. ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 152.
Decided October 12, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 14 N. Y. 2d 11, 197 N. E. 2d 285.

Harold Riegelman and H. H. Nordlinger for appellants.

Leo A. Larkin, Stanley Buchsbaum and Samuel J. Warms for the City of New York et al., and Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Gustave Soderberg, Assistant Attorney General, for Lefkowitz, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.




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.