Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Corpora Vs. New York

Corpora vs New York

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Apr-26-1965
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101171

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
380 U.S. 520
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Corpora

Respondent

New York

Excerpt

corpora v. new york - 380 u.s. 520 (1965) u.s. supreme court corpora v. new york, 380 u.s. 520 (1965) 380 u.s. 520 corpora v. new york. appeal from the court of appeals of new york. no. 934. decided april 26, 1965. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. emanuel redfield for appellant. frank s. hogan and h. richard uviller for appellee. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. page 380 u.s. 520, 521 gold v. di carlo, 380 u.s. 520 (1965) 380 u.s. 520 (1965) "> u.s. supreme court gold v. di carlo, 380 u.s. 520 (1965) 380 u.s. 520 gold et al. v. di carlo, commissioner of licenses of city of new york, et al. appeal from the united states district court for the southern district of new york. no. 901. decided april 26, 1965. 235 f. supp. 817, affirmed. jesse moss for appellants. leo a. larkin and seymour b. quel for dicarlo, and louis j. lefkowitz, attorney general of new york, pro se, samuel a. hirshowitz, first assistant attorney general, and lester esterman, assistant attorney general, for lefkowitz, appellees. per curiam. the motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Full Judgment

CORPORA v. NEW YORK - 380 U.S. 520 (1965)
U.S. Supreme Court CORPORA v. NEW YORK, 380 U.S. 520 (1965) 380 U.S. 520

CORPORA v. NEW YORK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
No. 934.
Decided April 26, 1965.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Emanuel Redfield for appellant.

Frank S. Hogan and H. Richard Uviller for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 380 U.S. 520, 521


GOLD v. Di CARLO, <a href="/101171"> 380 U.S. 520 </a> (1965) 380 U.S. 520 (1965) "> U.S. Supreme Court GOLD v. Di CARLO, 380 U.S. 520 (1965) 380 U.S. 520

GOLD ET AL. v. Di CARLO, COMMISSIONER OF LICENSES OF CITY OF NEW YORK,
ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 901.
Decided April 26, 1965.

235 F. Supp. 817, affirmed.

Jesse Moss for appellants.

Leo A. Larkin and Seymour B. Quel for DiCarlo, and Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Lester Esterman, Assistant Attorney General, for Lefkowitz, appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motions to affirm are granted and the judgment is affirmed.



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial