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.

Kovrak Vs. Ginsburg

Kovrak vs Ginsburg

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Oct-20-1958
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/99344

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
358 U.S. 52
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

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

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kovrak

Respondent

Ginsburg

Excerpt

kovrak v. ginsburg - 358 u.s. 52 (1958) u.s. supreme court kovrak v. ginsburg, 358 u.s. 52 (1958) 358 u.s. 52 kovrak v. ginsburg et al., members of the committee on unauthorized practice of the law. appeal from the supreme court of pennsylvania, eastern district. no. 266. decided october 20, 1958. appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. reported below: 392 pa. 143, 139 a. 2d 889. filindo b. masino and william b. ball for appellant. robert w. lees for appellees. per curiam. the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. page 358 u.s. 52, 53

Full Judgment

KOVRAK v. GINSBURG - 358 U.S. 52 (1958)
U.S. Supreme Court KOVRAK v. GINSBURG, 358 U.S. 52 (1958) 358 U.S. 52

KOVRAK v. GINSBURG ET AL., MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF THE LAW.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, EASTERN DISTRICT. No. 266.
Decided October 20, 1958.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 392 Pa. 143, 139 A. 2d 889.

Filindo B. Masino and William B. Ball for appellant.

Robert W. Lees for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

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

Page 358 U.S. 52, 53



Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial