New York Feed Co. v. Leary

397 U.S. 98

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided March 2, 1970·No. 992·Published·Cited by 26 cases

Opinion

397 U.S. 98 (1970)

NEW YORK FEED CO., INC., ET AL.
v.
LEARY ET AL.

No. 992.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided February 27, 1970^[*] APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

Herald Price Fahringer for appellants in No. 992. Ralph J. Schwarz, Jr., and Albert B. Gerber for appellants in No. 998.

J. Lee Rankin and Stanley Buchsbaum for appellee Leary in both cases, and Frank S. Hogan, pro se, and Michael R. Juviler for appellee Hogan in both cases. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. La Torella, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, filed a motion to dismiss or affirm for the Attorney General of New York.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgments are affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the cases set for oral argument.

NOTES

[*] Together with No. 998, Milky Way Productions, Inc., et al. v. Leary et al., also on appeal from the same court.

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

397 U.S. 98 (1970)

NEW YORK FEED CO., INC., ET AL.
v.
LEARY ET AL.

No. 992.

Supreme Court of United States.

Decided February 27, 1970^[*] APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

Herald Price Fahringer for appellants in No. 992. Ralph J. Schwarz, Jr., and Albert B. Gerber for appellants in No. 998.

J. Lee Rankin and Stanley Buchsbaum for appellee Leary in both cases, and Frank S. Hogan, pro se, and Michael R. Juviler for appellee Hogan in both cases. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Charles A. La Torella, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, filed a motion to dismiss or affirm for the Attorney General of New York.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgments are affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted and the cases set for oral argument.

NOTES

[*] Together with No. 998, Milky Way Productions, Inc., et al. v. Leary et al., also on appeal from the same court.

New York Feed Co. v. Leary, 397 U.S. 98 (1970).

Pincite

397 U.S. 98 (New York Feed Co. v. Leary) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pollitt v. Connick

596 F. Supp. 261 (E.D. Louisiana, 1984)

State v. Walters

440 So. 2d 115 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1983)

State v. Johnson

343 So. 2d 705 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1977)

People v. P. A. J. Theater Corp.

72 Misc. 2d 354 (Criminal Court of the City of New York, 1972)

State v. Lebewitz

202 N.W.2d 648 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1972)

Vernon Walker Huffman v. United States, Dennis Eugene Pryba v. United States

470 F.2d 386 (D.C. Circuit, 1972)

Greenmount Sales, Inc. v. Davila

344 F. Supp. 860 (E.D. Virginia, 1972)

Robert Krahm v. Milton Graham, Etc.

461 F.2d 703 (Ninth Circuit, 1972)

Jeannette Rankin Brigade v. Chief of Capitol Police

342 F. Supp. 575 (District of Columbia, 1972)

United States v. Gundlach

345 F. Supp. 701 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1972)

United States v. Green

284 A.2d 879 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1971)

McKinney v. State

254 So. 2d 714 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1971)

250 So. 2d 880 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1971)

Davison v. State

251 So. 2d 841 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1971)

People v. Chapman

17 Cal. App. 3d 865 (California Court of Appeal, 1971)

United States v. 50 Magazines

323 F. Supp. 395 (D. Rhode Island, 1971)

Perez v. Ledesma

401 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 1971)

183 N.W.2d 29 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1971)

Overstock Book Co. v. Barry

436 F.2d 1289 (Second Circuit, 1970)

Overstock Book Company, Inc. v. Barry

436 F.2d 1289 (Second Circuit, 1970)