Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Screvane v. Lomenzo

382 U.S. 11

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1965-10-18
Topic
general

Per Curiam. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed. Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. [For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see No. 85, WMCA, Inc., et al. v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Screvane v. Lomenzo. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
6 opinions
SCREVANEv. LOMENZO,382 U.S. 11(1965)
SCREVANE, PRESIDENT OF CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.v. LOMENZO,
SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW YORK, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK.
No. 449.
Decided October 11, 1965.
Affirmed.
Leo A. Larkin, Morris HandelandGeorge H. P.Dwightfor appellants.Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York,Daniel M. Cohen, Assistant Solicitor General,DonaldZimmerman, Special Assistant Attorney General,GeorgeD. Zuckerman, Assistant Attorney General,Leonard B.SandandMax Grossfor appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

[For concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, see No. 85,WMCA, Inc., et al. v.Lomenzo, Secretary of Stateof New York, et al., ante, p. 4.]Page 12