Skip to content


Spiesel Vs. Roos - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number385 U.S. 16
AppellantSpiesel
RespondentRoos
Excerpt:
.....court for the southern district of new york. no. 390, misc. decided october 10, 1966. appeal dismissed. appellant pro se. anthony l. schiavetti for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. bradford v. postel, 385 u.s. 16 (1966) 385 u.s. 16 (1966) "> u.s. supreme court bradford v. postel, 385 u.s. 16 (1966) 385 u.s. 16 bradford v. postel, justice of the supreme court of the state of new york, et al. appeal from the court of appeals of new york. no. 402, misc. decided october 10, 1966. appeal dismissed. appellant pro se. louis j. lefkowitz, attorney general of new york, samuel a. hirshowitz, first assistant attorney general, and brenda soloff,.....
Judgment:
SPIESEL v. ROOS - 385 U.S. 16 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court SPIESEL v. ROOS, 385 U.S. 16 (1966) 385 U.S. 16

SPIESEL v. ROOS.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 390, Misc.
Decided October 10, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

Appellant pro se.

Anthony L. Schiavetti for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.


BRADFORD v. POSTEL, <a href="/101329"> 385 U.S. 16 </a> (1966) 385 U.S. 16 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court BRADFORD v. POSTEL, 385 U.S. 16 (1966) 385 U.S. 16

BRADFORD v. POSTEL, JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF
NEW YORK, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK. No. 402, Misc.
Decided October 10, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

Appellant pro se.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 385 U.S. 16, 17




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