People ex rel. Stenstrom v. Harnett
224 A.D. 806
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People ex rel. Stenstrom v. Harnett. Read the opinion of the Court — 224 A.D. 127 →
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 15, 1928·Published
Opinion
Decision and order amended by including therein the statement that the order is affirmed as a matter of law and not in the exercise of discretion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, and the following questions certified: 1. Should the Special Term have denied the motion for the mandamus order under article 1, section 6, of the State Constitution? 2. Should the Special Term have denied said motion because the report was not a public record? Present —-Van Kirk, P. J., Hinman, Davis, Whitmyer and Hill, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People ex rel. Stenstrom v. Harnett, 224 A.D. 806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).
224 A.D. 806 (People ex rel. Stenstrom v. Harnett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.