LAIKIND v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, 397 U.S. 148 (1970)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
LAIKIND v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, 397 U.S. 148 (1970) 397 U.S. 148LAIKIND v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW
YORK
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 68.
Decided March 2, 1970
22 N.Y.2d 346, 239 N.E.2d 550, appeal dismissed.
Victor Konow for appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Warren M. Goidel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a final judgment.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that further consideration of the question of jurisdiction should be postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 68.
Decided March 2, 1970
22 N.Y.2d 346, 239 N.E.2d 550, appeal dismissed. Victor Konow for appellant. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Warren M. Goidel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a final judgment. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that further consideration of the question of jurisdiction should be postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits. Page 397 U.S. 148, 149
U.S. Supreme Court
LAIKIND v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, 397 U.S. 148 (1970) 397 U.S. 148 LAIKIND v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORKAPPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 68.
Decided March 2, 1970
22 N.Y.2d 346, 239 N.E.2d 550, appeal dismissed. Victor Konow for appellant. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Warren M. Goidel, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a final judgment. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that further consideration of the question of jurisdiction should be postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits. Page 397 U.S. 148, 149
Search This Case
