Skip to content


Chupka Vs. Lorenz-schneider Co., Inc. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number372 U.S. 227
AppellantChupka
RespondentLorenz-schneider Co., Inc.
Excerpt:
..... appeal from the court of appeals of new york. no. 650. decided february 18, 1963. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 12 n. y. 2d 1, 186 n. e. 2d 191. kalman i. nulman for appellants. samuel j. cohen for appellee teamsters local 802. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. page 372 u.s. 227, 228 king county v. f. l. hartung glass co., inc., 372 u.s. 227 (1963) 372 u.s. 227 (1963) "> u.s. supreme court king county v. f. l. hartung glass co., inc., 372 u.s. 227 (1963) 372 u.s. 227 king county et al. v. f. l. hartung glass co., inc. appeal from the supreme court of.....
Judgment:
CHUPKA v. LORENZ-SCHNEIDER CO., INC. - 372 U.S. 227 (1963)
U.S. Supreme Court CHUPKA v. LORENZ-SCHNEIDER CO., INC., 372 U.S. 227 (1963) 372 U.S. 227

CHUPKA ET AL. v. LORENZ-SCHNEIDER CO., INC., ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 650.
Decided February 18, 1963.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 12 N. Y. 2d 1, 186 N. E. 2d 191.

Kalman I. Nulman for appellants.

Samuel J. Cohen for appellee Teamsters Local 802.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Page 372 U.S. 227, 228


KING COUNTY v. F. L. HARTUNG GLASS CO., INC., <a href="/100706"> 372 U.S. 227 </a> (1963) 372 U.S. 227 (1963) "> U.S. Supreme Court KING COUNTY v. F. L. HARTUNG GLASS CO., INC., 372 U.S. 227 (1963) 372 U.S. 227

KING COUNTY ET AL. v. F. L. HARTUNG GLASS CO., INC.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON.
No. 647.
Decided February 18, 1963.

Appeal dismissed and certiorari denied.

Reported below: 60 Wash. 2d 392, 374 P.2d 174.

William L. Paul, Jr. for appellants.

Ofell H. Johnson for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //