Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
RADICH v. NEW YORK, 1971 — 401 U.S. 531 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
RADICH v. NEW YORK
401 U.S. 53128 L. Ed. 2d 287·Supreme Court of the United States·1971
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
RADICH v. NEW YORK
No. 169.
Argued February 22, 1971
Decided March 24, 1971
Richard G. Green argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Shirley Fingerhood and Melvin L. Wulj.
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.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
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.