Corliss Lamont, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and R. L. Polk & Co., Defendants-Appellees., 386 F.2d 449 (2nd Cir. 1967)

Federal Circuits, 2nd Cir. (December 12, 1967)

Docket number: 205

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/corliss-lamont-himself-vehicles-polk-37627700
Id. vLex: VLEX-37627700

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Cited by:

U.S. Supreme Court - Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (1975)

Capital University Law Review - Sealed With an Acquittal: When not Guilty Means Never Having to Say You Were Tried

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Chin, Defendant-Appellant., 934 F.2d 393 (2nd Cir. 1991)

U.S. Supreme Court - Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Cir. - Martin Mcnally, Appellant, v. the Pulitzer Publishing Company and Ted Gest, Appellees., 532 F.2d 69 (8th Cir. 1976)

See all citations to this document

Text:

Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Marvin E. Frankel, J., denying appellant's motion to convene a three-judge court and granting appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint. Opinion below reported at 269 F.Supp. 880.

Leonard Boudin, New York City (Rabinowitz & Boudin, Victor Rabinowitz, New York City, David Rein, Washington, D. C., and Joan Goldberg, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Mortimer Sattler, New York City (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joel Lewittes, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

Wyllys S. Newcomb, New York City (Royall, Koegel, Rogers & Wells, John M. O'Hara and Guy C. Quinlan, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee, R. L. Polk & Co.

Before MOORE, SMITH and HAYS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm for substantially the reasons contained in the opinion of Judge Frankel reported at 269 F.Supp. 880 (S.D.N.Y.1967).