LAIKIND
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK

U.S. | 1970-03-02
No. 68
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that further consideration of the question of jurisdiction should be postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits.
397 U.S. 148 Supreme Court of the United States (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a final judgment.

Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that further consideration of the question of jurisdiction should be postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Solange Landau v. Vallen, 895 F.2d 888 (2d Cir. 1990)
    …for example, expressly permit attachment of funds held in custodia legis. See Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen, 716 F. 2d 126, 129 (2d Cir.1983); Matter of Leikind, 22 N.Y.2d 346, 353, 239 N.E. 2d 550, 552-54, 292 N.Y.S.2d 681, 686 (1968), appeal dismissed, 397 U.S. 148, 90 S.Ct. 990, 25 L.Ed.2d 182 (1970). Even in the federal courts, where no such explicit rule has been articulated, attachment of funds in the registry is permissible with leave of the supervising court. See Jones v. Merchants’ Nat’l Bank, 76 F. 6…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw