STEIN v. LUKEN, 396 U.S. 555 (1970)
U.S. Supreme Court
STEIN v. LUKEN, 396 U.S. 555 (1970) 396 U.S. 555 STEIN v. LUKEN ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
No. 854.
Decided February 2, 1970
Appeal dismissed.
Yale Stein, appellant, pro se.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for failure to docket the case within the time prescribed by Rule 13.
U.S. Supreme Court
PROVIDENCE & WORCESTER CO. v. UNITED STATES, 396 U.S. 555 (1970) 396 U.S. 555 PROVIDENCE & WORCESTER CO. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK No. 919.
Decided February 2, 1970
300 F. Supp. 185, affirmed.
Harold I. Meyerson for appellant.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Deputy Solicitor General Springer, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane, and Leonard S. Goodman for appellees the United States et al.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
U.S. Supreme Court
STEIN v. LUKEN, 396 U.S. 555 (1970) 396 U.S. 555 STEIN v. LUKEN ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
No. 854.
Decided February 2, 1970
Appeal dismissed.
Yale Stein, appellant, pro se.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for failure to docket the case within the time prescribed by Rule 13.
U.S. Supreme Court
PROVIDENCE & WORCESTER CO. v. UNITED STATES, 396 U.S. 555 (1970) 396 U.S. 555 PROVIDENCE & WORCESTER CO. v. UNITED STATES ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK No. 919.
Decided February 2, 1970
300 F. Supp. 185, affirmed.
Harold I. Meyerson for appellant.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Deputy Solicitor General Springer, Howard E. Shapiro, Robert W. Ginnane, and Leonard S. Goodman for appellees the United States et al.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Page 396 U.S. 555, 556
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.
