Skip to content


Shanker Vs. Rankin - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number396 U.S. 120
AppellantShanker
RespondentRankin
Excerpt:
shanker v. rankin - 396 u.s. 120 (1969) u.s. supreme court shanker v. rankin, 396 u.s. 120 (1969) 396 u.s. 120 shanker et al. v. rankin, corporation counsel of the city of new york appeal from the court of appeals of new york no. 552. decided december 8, 1969 25 n. y. 2d 780, 250 n. e. 2d 584, appeal dismissed. ralph p. katz for appellants. j. lee rankin, pro se, frederic s. nathan, and stanley buchsbaum for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. mr. justice black and mr. justice douglas are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted. page 396 u.s. 120, 121
Judgment:
SHANKER v. RANKIN - 396 U.S. 120 (1969)
U.S. Supreme Court SHANKER v. RANKIN, 396 U.S. 120 (1969) 396 U.S. 120

SHANKER ET AL. v. RANKIN, CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 552.
Decided December 8, 1969

25 N. Y. 2d 780, 250 N. E. 2d 584, appeal dismissed.

Ralph P. Katz for appellants.

J. Lee Rankin, pro se, Frederic S. Nathan, and Stanley Buchsbaum for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

MR. JUSTICE BLACK and MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS are of the opinion that probable jurisdiction should be noted.

Page 396 U.S. 120, 121




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