0% found this document useful (0 votes)
18 views1 page

Manhattan Land Case Appeal Decision

The United States appeals a district court's orders regarding its eminent domain claim over certain Manhattan land owned by 306 Broadway Realty Corp. and others. In a per curiam opinion, the Second Circuit affirms the district court's orders for the reasons provided in the lower court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion, and directs that the mandate issue immediately.
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
18 views1 page

Manhattan Land Case Appeal Decision

The United States appeals a district court's orders regarding its eminent domain claim over certain Manhattan land owned by 306 Broadway Realty Corp. and others. In a per curiam opinion, the Second Circuit affirms the district court's orders for the reasons provided in the lower court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion, and directs that the mandate issue immediately.
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

336 F.

2d 1021

UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Plaintiff-Appellee,


v.
CERTAIN LAND IN the BOROUGH OF MANHATTAN,
CITY, COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK, and 306
Broadway Reaty Corp., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 514.
Docket 28942.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.


Argued August 14, 1964.
Decided August 14, 1964.

A. Donald Mileur, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Ramsey


Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roger P. Marquis, Washington, D. C., and
Harry Dolan, Special Asst. to Atty. Gen., Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief),
for petitioner-plaintiff-appellee.
Jacob D. Fuchsberg, New York City (Stanley N. Yankelevitz and
Fuchsberg & Fuchsberg, New York City, on the brief), for defendantsappellants.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and WATERMAN and HAYS, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.

We affirm the orders of the district court filed on August 5 and 6, 1964 for the
reasons set forth in Judge Tenney's thorough and well reasoned opinion. 233
F.Supp. 899. We direct that the mandate issue forthwith.

You might also like