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