SHANKER v. RANKIN, 396 U.S. 120 (1969)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
SHANKER v. RANKIN, 396 U.S. 120 (1969) 396 U.S. 120SHANKER ET AL. v. RANKIN, CORPORATION
COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 552.
Decided December 8, 1969
25 N.Y.2d 780, 250 N.E.2d 584, appeal dismissed.
Ralph P. Katz for appellants.
J. Lee Rankin, pro se, Frederic S. Nathan, and Stanley Buchsbaum for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 552.
Decided December 8, 1969
25 N.Y.2d 780, 250 N.E.2d 584, appeal dismissed. Ralph P. Katz for appellants. J. Lee Rankin, pro se, Frederic S. Nathan, and Stanley Buchsbaum for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 396 U.S. 120, 121
U.S. Supreme Court
SHANKER v. RANKIN, 396 U.S. 120 (1969) 396 U.S. 120 SHANKER ET AL. v. RANKIN, CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORKAPPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 552.
Decided December 8, 1969
25 N.Y.2d 780, 250 N.E.2d 584, appeal dismissed. Ralph P. Katz for appellants. J. Lee Rankin, pro se, Frederic S. Nathan, and Stanley Buchsbaum for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 396 U.S. 120, 121
Search This Case
