LORDI v. EPSTEIN, 389 U.S. 29 (1967)

U.S. Supreme Court

LORDI v. EPSTEIN, 389 U.S. 29 (1967)

389 U.S. 29

LORDI, DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, DEPARTMENT
OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY OF NEW JERSEY v. EPSTEIN ET AL.,
TRADING AS STRATFORD INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW

JERSEY.

 No. 322.
Decided October 16, 1967.

 261 F. Supp. 921, affirmed.

Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Joseph A. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Charles H. Tuttle for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Cf. Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U.S. 324.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.

Page 389 U.S. 29, 30

 


U.S. Supreme Court

LORDI v. EPSTEIN, 389 U.S. 29 (1967)

389 U.S. 29

LORDI, DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL, DEPARTMENT
OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY OF NEW JERSEY v. EPSTEIN ET AL.,
TRADING AS STRATFORD INTERNATIONAL TOBACCO CO. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW

JERSEY.

 No. 322.
Decided October 16, 1967.

 261 F. Supp. 921, affirmed.

Arthur J. Sills, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Joseph A. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Charles H. Tuttle for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Cf. Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U.S. 324.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE HARLAN would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.

Page 389 U.S. 29, 30

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.