NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 349 (1967)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court Reports

NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 349 (1967) NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 349 (1967) 386 U.S. 349

NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK. No. 968.
Decided March 20, 1967.

256 F. Supp. 634, affirmed.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Ruth Kessler Toch, Solicitor General, Dunton F. Tynan, Assistant Solicitor General, Matthew A. Tiffany, Assistant Attorney General, and Walter J. Myskowski for appellant.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Leonard S. Goodman for the United States et al.

R. J. Murphy and D. M. Tolmie for appellee railroads; William C. Sennett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Edward Friedman for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Eugene T. Liipfert for the Port Authority of Allegheny County et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 386 U.S. 349, 350




U.S. Supreme Court Reports

NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 349 (1967) NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 349 (1967) 386 U.S. 349

NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK. No. 968.
Decided March 20, 1967.

256 F. Supp. 634, affirmed.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Ruth Kessler Toch, Solicitor General, Dunton F. Tynan, Assistant Solicitor General, Matthew A. Tiffany, Assistant Attorney General, and Walter J. Myskowski for appellant.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane and Leonard S. Goodman for the United States et al.

R. J. Murphy and D. M. Tolmie for appellee railroads; William C. Sennett, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and Edward Friedman for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Eugene T. Liipfert for the Port Authority of Allegheny County et al., appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Page 386 U.S. 349, 350

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.