Loporto v. Druiss Company, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Loporto v. Druiss Company, Inc.

200 N.E. 54, 269 N.Y. 677, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1462

DecidedJanuary 14, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 200 N.E. 54 (Loporto v. Druiss Company, Inc.) 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

Loporto v. Druiss Company, Inc., 200 N.E. 54, 269 N.Y. 677, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1462 (N.Y. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and when returned it will be amended by adding thereto the following: “A question under the Federal Constitution was presented and necessarily passed upon by this court, viz.: The appellants contended that sections 1077-a, 1077-b, 1077-c and 1077-e of the *678 Civil Practice Act of New York State are invalid, null and void and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, particularly section 10 of article 1 and section 1 of the 14th Amendment. This court held that said sections of the Civil Practice Act of New York State are constitutional and not repugnant to the Federal Constitution in any respect.” (See 268 N. Y. 699.^

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and when returned it will be amended by adding thereto the following: “A question under the Federal Constitution was presented and necessarily passed upon by this court, viz.: The appellants contended that sections 1077-a, 1077-b, 1077-c and 1077-e of the *678 Civil Practice Act of New York State are invalid, null and void and violative of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, particularly section 10 of article 1 and section 1 of the 14th Amendment. This court held that said sections of the Civil Practice Act of New York State are constitutional and not repugnant to the Federal Constitution in any respect.” (See 268 N. Y. 699.^

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 N.E. 54, 269 N.Y. 677, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loporto-v-druiss-company-inc-ny-1936.