PUGACH v. NEW YORK
383 U.S. 575 (1966)

 Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

PUGACH v. NEW YORK, 383 U.S. 575 (1966)

383 U.S. 575

PUGACH v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 131, Misc.
Decided March 21, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

Petitioner pro se.

Isidore Dollinger and Bertram R. Gelfand for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 383 U.S. 575, 576

COUNTY BOARD, ELECTION, MONROE CTY. v. UNITED STATES, <a href="/cases/federal/us/383/575/case.html">383 U.S. 575</a> (1966) 383 U.S. 575 (1966) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

COUNTY BOARD, ELECTION, MONROE CTY. v. UNITED STATES, 383 U.S. 575 (1966)

383 U.S. 575

COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION OF MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK, ET AL. v.
UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 1040.
Decided March 21, 1966.

248 F. Supp. 316, appeal dismissed.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Jean M. Coon, Assistant Attorney General, Ruth Kessler Toch, Acting Solicitor General, and William A. Stevens for appellants.

Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111; Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 382 U.S. 281.




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.