Skip to content


Vokes Vs. City of Chicago - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number377 U.S. 124
AppellantVokes
RespondentCity of Chicago
Excerpt:
.....a substantial federal question. page 377 u.s. 124, 125 378 realty corp. v. new york rent & rehab. admin., 377 u.s. 124 (1964) 377 u.s. 124 (1964) "> u.s. supreme court 378 realty corp. v. new york rent & rehab. admin., 377 u.s. 124 (1964) 377 u.s. 124 378 realty corp. et al. v. new york city rent and rehabilitation administration et al. appeal from the court of appeals of new york. no. 845. decided april 20, 1964. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 13 n. y. 2d 902, 193 n. e. 2d 510. harris l. present and irving s. freedman for appellants. beatrice shainswit for appellees. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for.....
Judgment:
VOKES v. CITY OF CHICAGO - 377 U.S. 124 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court VOKES v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 377 U.S. 124 (1964) 377 U.S. 124

VOKES ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS.
No. 855.
Decided April 20, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 28 Ill. 2d 475, 193 N. E. 2d 40.

Charles A. Bellows for appellants.

John C. Melaniphy, Sydney R. Drebin and Robert J. Collins for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 377 U.S. 124, 125


378 REALTY CORP. v. NEW YORK RENT & REHAB. ADMIN., <a href="/100919"> 377 U.S. 124 </a> (1964) 377 U.S. 124 (1964) "> U.S. Supreme Court 378 REALTY CORP. v. NEW YORK RENT & REHAB. ADMIN., 377 U.S. 124 (1964) 377 U.S. 124

378 REALTY CORP. ET AL. v. NEW YORK CITY RENT AND REHABILITATION
ADMINISTRATION ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. No. 845.
Decided April 20, 1964.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 13 N. Y. 2d 902, 193 N. E. 2d 510.

Harris L. Present and Irving S. Freedman for appellants.

Beatrice Shainswit for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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




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