BRAUNSTEIN

v.

NEW YORK, ETC.

Citator

Cited By

• Dep't of Banking of Neb. v. Pink, 317 U.S. 264 (U.S. 1942)
  …f the Judicial Code, a final judgment reviewable here. Eor the purpose of the finality which is prerequisite to a review in this Court, the test is not whether under local rules of practice the judgment is denominated final (Wick v. Superior Court, 278 U. S. 575; Cheltenham & Abington Sewerage Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm’n, post, p. 588), but rather whether the record shows that the order of the appellate court has in fact fully adjudicated rights and that that adjudication is not subject to fur…
• Buscaglia v. Dist. Court of San Juan, 145 F.2d 274 (1st Cir. 1944)
  …ing finality the Supreme Court will not look to state law or practice except to ascertain the incidents and eSects of a particular judgment. Having done this, it will apply its own criteria ol finality, not the state court’s. Wick v. Superior Court, 278 U.S. 575, 49 S.Ct. 94, 73 L.Ed. 515, and eases cited, Cole v. Violette, 319 U.S. 581, 582, 63 S.Ct. 1204, 87 L.Ed. 1599. The applicable provision of this section reads: “If at the termination of any fiscal year the appropriations necessary for the support o…
• Cheltenham & Abington Sewerage Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 317 U.S. 588 (U.S. 1942)
  …Per Curiam: In No. 160 the appeal is dismissed, and in No. 169 the petition for writ of [*589] certiorari is denied, for want of a final judgment. Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U. S. 251; Wick v. Superior Court, 278 U. S. 575. Mr. George Henry Huft for appellant in No. 160 and respondent in No. 169. Mr. Thomas A. Foulke for Benjamin H. Davis et al., appellees in No. 160. Messrs. Claude T. Reno, Harry M. Showalter, Samuel Graff Miller, and Herbert S. Levy for the Pennsy…

Authorities Cited

• Cap. City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1902)
• Hiawassee River Power Co. v. Carolina-Tennessee Power Co., 252 U.S. 341 (U.S. 1920)