GOLDSTEIN v. COX, 389 U.S. 581 (1968)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
GOLDSTEIN v. COX, 389 U.S. 581 (1968) 389 U.S. 581GOLDSTEIN, AKA PIETRARU, ET AL. v. COX
ET AL., SURROGATES OF THE COUNTY
OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 825.
Decided January 15, 1968.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded.
John R. Vintilla, Emanuel Eschwege and Novak N. Marku for petitioners.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, and Daniel M. Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Zschernig v. Miller, ante, p. 429.
Opinions
OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 825.
Decided January 15, 1968.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded. John R. Vintilla, Emanuel Eschwege and Novak N. Marku for petitioners. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, and Daniel M. Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Zschernig v. Miller, ante, p. 429. Page 389 U.S. 581, 582
U.S. Supreme Court
GOLDSTEIN v. COX, 389 U.S. 581 (1968) 389 U.S. 581 GOLDSTEIN, AKA PIETRARU, ET AL. v. COX ET AL., SURROGATES OF THE COUNTYOF NEW YORK, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 825.
Decided January 15, 1968.
Certiorari granted; vacated and remanded. John R. Vintilla, Emanuel Eschwege and Novak N. Marku for petitioners. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, and Daniel M. Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents. PER CURIAM. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment is vacated. The case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of Zschernig v. Miller, ante, p. 429. Page 389 U.S. 581, 582
Search This Case
