Loporto v. Druiss Company, Inc.

200 N.E. 54, 269 N.Y. 677, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1462
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Loporto v. Druiss Company, Inc.. Read the opinion of the Court — 268 N.Y. 699
New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 14, 1936·Published

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

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

200 N.E. 54 (Loporto v. Druiss Company, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.