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.
CITY OF NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES et al., 1970 — 397 U.S. 248 · caselaw · US
General
CITY OF NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES et al.
397 U.S. 248·Supreme Court of the United States·1970
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
CITY OF NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES et al.
No. 1121.
Decided March 16, 1970
J. Lee Rankin, Norman Redlich, John R. Thompson, and David I. Shapiro for appellant in No. 1121. Benjamin F. Schwartz and Herbert A. Karzen for appellants in No. 1122.
Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Howard E. Shapiro, and Bernard M. Hollander for the United States in both cases. Carl J. Schuck, Wayne H. Knight, Fred D. Fagg III, Philip K. Verleger, Allyn 0. Kreps, Julian 0. Von Kalinowski, Lloyd N. Cutler, Howard P. Willens, James S. Campbell, Ross L. Malone, and Marcus Mattson for Automobile Manufacturers Assn., Inc., et al., appellees in both cases.
Briefs of amici curiae in No. 1121 were filed by Jerry S. Cohen, Harold E. Kohn, Aaron M. Fine, and William T. Coleman, Jr., for the City of Baltimore et al. ; by John H. Larson for the County of Los Angeles et al. ; and by David Berger and Herbert B. Newberg for the County of Lackawanna et al.
Together with No. 1122, Grossman et al. v. Automobile Manufacturers Assn., Inc., et al., also on appeal from the same court.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
In No. 1121 the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
In No. 1122 the motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.