SPROWAL v. NEW YORK, 385 U.S. 649 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court
SPROWAL v. NEW YORK, 385 U.S. 649 (1967) 385 U.S. 649SPROWAL v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 825.
Decided January 23, 1967.
Appeal dismissed.
Carl Rachlin for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
385 U.S. 649 (1967) 385 U.S. 649 (1967) ">
U.S. Supreme Court
FEIN v. NEW YORK, 385 U.S. 649 (1967) 385 U.S. 649FEIN v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 793.
Decided January 23, 1967.
18 N.Y.2d 162, 219 N.E.2d 274, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.
Louis Nizer, Paul Martinson and Bennett Boskey for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.
U.S. Supreme Court
SPROWAL v. NEW YORK, 385 U.S. 649 (1967) 385 U.S. 649 SPROWAL v. NEW YORK.APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 825.
Decided January 23, 1967.
Appeal dismissed. Carl Rachlin for appellant. Frank S. Hogan for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. Page 385 U.S. 649, 650
385 U.S. 649 (1967) 385 U.S. 649 (1967) ">
U.S. Supreme Court
FEIN v. NEW YORK, 385 U.S. 649 (1967) 385 U.S. 649 FEIN v. NEW YORK.APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 793.
Decided January 23, 1967.
18 N.Y.2d 162, 219 N.E.2d 274, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied. Louis Nizer, Paul Martinson and Bennett Boskey for appellant. Frank S. Hogan for appellee. PER CURIAM. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.