Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Travia v. Lomenzo

382 U.S. 9

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1965-11-22
Topic
general

Per Curiam. The motion to dispense with printing the jurisdictional statement is granted. The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed. Mr. Justice Fort as took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. [For concurring opinion of Mr.

Citator

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

Cited by
4 opinions
TRAVIAv. LOMENZO,382 U.S. 9(1965)
TRAVIA 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. 191.
Decided October 11, 1965.
Affirmed.
Simon H. RifkindandEdward N. Costikyanfor 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, andWillisBurton Lemonfor appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dispense with printing the jurisdictional statement is granted.

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 10