Radich Vs. New York - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/102859
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided OnMar-24-1971
Case Number401 U.S. 531
AppellantRadich
RespondentNew York
Excerpt:
radich v. new york - 401 u.s. 531 (1971) u.s. supreme court radich v. new york, 401 u.s. 531 (1971) 401 u.s. 531 radich v. new york appeal from the court of appeals of new york no. 169. argued february 22, 1971 decided march 24, 1971 26 n. y. 2d 114, 257 n. e. 2d 30, affirmed by an equally divided court. richard g. green argued the cause for appellant. with him on the briefs were shirley fingerhood and melvin l. wulf. michael r. juviler argued the cause for appellee. with him on the brief were frank s. hogan and william c. donnino. john b. hightower et al. filed a brief as amicus curiae urging reversal. louis j. lefkowitz, attorney general, pro se, samuel a. hirshowitz, first assistant attorney general, and maria l. marcus, assistant attorney general, filed a brief for the attorney general of new york as amicus curiae urging affirmance. per curiam. the judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court. mr. justice douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. page 401 u.s. 531, 532
Judgment:
RADICH v. NEW YORK - 401 U.S. 531 (1971)
U.S. Supreme Court RADICH v. NEW YORK, 401 U.S. 531 (1971) 401 U.S. 531

RADICH v. NEW YORK
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 169.
Argued February 22, 1971
Decided March 24, 1971

26 N. Y. 2d 114, 257 N. E. 2d 30, affirmed by an equally divided Court.

Richard G. Green argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Shirley Fingerhood and Melvin L. Wulf.

Michael R. Juviler argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Frank S. Hogan and William C. Donnino.

John B. Hightower et al. filed a brief as amicus curiae urging reversal.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Maria L. Marcus, Assistant Attorney General, filed a brief for the Attorney General of New York as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 401 U.S. 531, 532