BERKSHIRE ASSOCIATES v. NEW YORK, 361 U.S. 3 (1959)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
BERKSHIRE ASSOCIATES v. NEW YORK, 361 U.S. 3 (1959) 361 U.S. 3BERKSHIRE FINE SPINNING ASSOCIATES,
INC., v. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 272.
Decided October 12, 1959.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 5 N.Y.2d 347, 157 N.E.2d 614.
Truman Henson for appellant.
Stanley Buchsbaum for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
Opinions
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 272.
Decided October 12, 1959.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 5 N.Y.2d 347, 157 N.E.2d 614. Truman Henson for appellant. Stanley Buchsbaum for appellees. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 361 U.S. 3, 4
U.S. Supreme Court
BERKSHIRE ASSOCIATES v. NEW YORK, 361 U.S. 3 (1959) 361 U.S. 3 BERKSHIRE FINE SPINNING ASSOCIATES, INC., v. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 272.
Decided October 12, 1959.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Reported below: 5 N.Y.2d 347, 157 N.E.2d 614. Truman Henson for appellant. Stanley Buchsbaum for appellees. PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 361 U.S. 3, 4
Search This Case
