Corliss Lamont, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and R. L. Polk & Co.

Second Circuit

Corliss Lamont, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and R. L. Polk & Co.

386 F.2d 449, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4195

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 12, 1967

Docket31595

StatusPublished

This text of 386 F.2d 449 (Corliss Lamont, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and R. L. Polk & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Corliss Lamont, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and R. L. Polk & Co., 386 F.2d 449, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4195 (2d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

386 F.2d 449

Corliss LAMONT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES and R. L. Polk & Co., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 205.

Docket 31595.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued November 28, 1967.

Decided December 12, 1967.

Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Marvin E. Frankel, J., denying appellant's motion to convene a three-judge court and granting appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint. Opinion below reported at 269 F.Supp. 880.

Leonard Boudin, New York City (Rabinowitz & Boudin, Victor Rabinowitz, New York City, David Rein, Washington, D. C., and Joan Goldberg, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Mortimer Sattler, New York City (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joel Lewittes, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Wyllys S. Newcomb, New York City (Royall, Koegel, Rogers & Wells, John M. O'Hara and Guy C. Quinlan, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, R. L. Polk & Co.

Before MOORE, SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm for substantially the reasons contained in the opinion of Judge Frankel reported at 269 F.Supp. 880 (S.D.N.Y.1967).

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