Skip to content


Pugach Vs. New York - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number383 U.S. 575
AppellantPugach
RespondentNew York
Excerpt:
.....appeal from the court of appeals of new york. no. 131, misc. decided march 21, 1966. appeal dismissed. petitioner pro se. isidore dollinger and bertram r. gelfand for respondent. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. page 383 u.s. 575, 576 county board, election, monroe cty. v. united states, 383 u.s. 575 (1966) 383 u.s. 575 (1966) "> u.s. supreme court county board, election, monroe cty. v. united states, 383 u.s. 575 (1966) 383 u.s. 575 county board of election of monroe county, new york, et al. v. united states. appeal from the united states district court for the western district of new york. no. 1040. .....
Judgment:
PUGACH v. NEW YORK - 383 U.S. 575 (1966)
U.S. Supreme Court PUGACH v. NEW YORK, 383 U.S. 575 (1966) 383 U.S. 575

PUGACH v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 131, Misc.
Decided March 21, 1966.

Appeal dismissed.

Petitioner pro se.

Isidore Dollinger and Bertram R. Gelfand for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 383 U.S. 575, 576


COUNTY BOARD, ELECTION, MONROE CTY. v. UNITED STATES, <a href="/101441"> 383 U.S. 575 </a> (1966) 383 U.S. 575 (1966) "> U.S. Supreme Court COUNTY BOARD, ELECTION, MONROE CTY. v. UNITED STATES, 383 U.S. 575 (1966) 383 U.S. 575

COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION OF MONROE COUNTY, NEW YORK, ET AL. v.
UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 1040.
Decided March 21, 1966.

248 F. Supp. 316, appeal dismissed.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, Jean M. Coon, Assistant Attorney General, Ruth Kessler Toch, Acting Solicitor General, and William A. Stevens for appellants.

Solicitor General Marshall for the United States.

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Swift & Co. v. Wickham, 382 U.S. 111 ; Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 382 U.S. 281 .




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