Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Lamont v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles

386 F.2d 449

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1967-12-12
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: We affirm for substantially the reasons contained in the opinion of Judge Frankel reported at 269 F.Supp. 880 (S.D.N.Y.1967).

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Lamont v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
LAMONT v. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES,386 F.2d 449(2nd Cir. 1967)
Corliss LAMONT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES and R.L. Polk
Co., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 205, Docket 31595.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued November 28, 1967.
Decided December 12, 1967.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Marvin E. Frankel, J., denying appellant's motion to convene a three-judge court and granting appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint. Opinion below reported at269 F. Supp. 880.
Leonard Boudin, New York City (Rabinowitz Boudin, Victor Rabinowitz, New York City, David Rein, Washington, D.C., and Joan Goldberg, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Mortimer Sattler, New York City (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joel Lewittes, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Wyllys S. Newcomb, New York City (Royall, Koegel, Rogers Wells, John M. O'Hara and Guy C. Quinlan, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, R.L. Polk Co.
Before MOORE, SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.Page 450
PER CURIAM:
We affirm for substantially the reasons contained in the opinion of Judge Frankel reported at269 F. Supp. 880(S.D.N Y 1967).