Lordi v. Epstein
389 U.S. 29
Opinion
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Cf. Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U. S. 324.
would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for oral argument.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lordi v. Epstein, 389 U.S. 29 (1967).
389 U.S. 29 (Lordi v. Epstein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
No. 92-3003
986 F.2d 1431 (Tenth Circuit, 1993)
State v. Passante
542 A.2d 952 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1987)
Tax Review Board v. Lipschutz Bros.
439 A.2d 862 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Reid v. Exports, Inc.
388 So. 2d 1332 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Goldstein v. Miller
488 F. Supp. 156 (D. Maryland, 1980)
Division of Beverage, Department of Business Regulation v. Bonanni Ship Supply, Inc.
356 So. 2d 308 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1978)
Ammex Warehouse Co. v. Procaccino
85 Misc. 2d 327 (New York Supreme Court, 1976)
District of Columbia v. Samuel Meisel & Co.
316 A.2d 546 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1974)
Kugler v. Haitian Tours, Inc.
293 A.2d 706 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1972)
House of York, Ltd. v. Ring
322 F. Supp. 530 (S.D. New York, 1970)
American Smelting & Refining Co. v. County of Contra Costa
271 Cal. App. 2d 437 (California Court of Appeal, 1969)