Tannenbaum v. New York
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
Mr. Justice Brennan would reverse the judgment of the lower court.
Dissent
Mr. Chief Justice Warren,
dissenting.
I dissent from the dismissal of this appeal as moot for the reasons stated in my dissent in Jacobs v. New York, ante, p. 431. In my view, the question presented by this case is extremely important and requires a decision on the merits by this Court. I would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents. (See dissent set forth in Jacobs v. New York, ante, at 436.)
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
388 U.S. 439 (1967)
TANNENBAUM
v.
NEW YORK.
No. 993.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided June 12, 1967. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK.
Osmond K. Fraenkel and Stanley Fleishman for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan for appellee.
Horace S. Manges for the American Book Publishers Council, Inc., as amicus curiae, in support of appellant.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN would reverse the judgment of the lower court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN, dissenting.
I dissent from the dismissal of this appeal as moot for the reasons stated in my dissent in Jacobs v. New York, ante, p. 431. In my view, the question presented by this case is extremely important and requires a decision on the merits by this Court. I would note probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS dissents. (See dissent set forth in Jacobs v. New York, ante, at 436.)
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 15 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court4
- Federal District Courts1
- Military Courts1
- State Highest Courts4
- State Appellate Courts3
- State Trial Courts1
- State Specialty Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.