A'Hearn v. Committee on Unlawful Practice of Law

New York Court of Appeals

A'Hearn v. Committee on Unlawful Practice of Law

248 N.E.2d 451, 24 N.Y.2d 822, 300 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1442

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 9, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 N.E.2d 451 (A'Hearn v. Committee on Unlawful Practice of Law) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A'Hearn v. Committee on Unlawful Practice of Law, 248 N.E.2d 451, 24 N.Y.2d 822, 300 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1442 (N.Y. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted only to the extent that the return of the remittitur is requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Petitioner-appellant contended that rule XII-A of the Part 4 Rules of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department, and the subpoena duces tecum issued to petitioner-appellant pursuant to such rule, violate his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Appeals considered these questions and held that there was no denial of any constitutional right of petitioner-appellant. [See 23 N Y 2d 916.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Motion to amend remittitur granted only to the extent that the return of the remittitur is requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there were presented and necessarily passed upon questions under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Petitioner-appellant contended that rule XII-A of the Part 4 Rules of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department, and the subpoena duces tecum issued to petitioner-appellant pursuant to such rule, violate his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The Court of Appeals considered these questions and held that there was no denial of any constitutional right of petitioner-appellant. [See 23 N Y 2d 916.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 N.E.2d 451, 24 N.Y.2d 822, 300 N.Y.S.2d 597, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ahearn-v-committee-on-unlawful-practice-of-law-ny-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack