Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of New York v. Tom F., 06-637 (2007)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Number: 06-637
Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Dec. 06, 2017
Summary: (Slip Opinion) Cite as: 552 U. S. _ (2007) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _ No. 06–637 _ BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
Summary: (Slip Opinion) Cite as: 552 U. S. _ (2007) 1 Per Curiam NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _ No. 06–637 _ BOARD OF EDUCATION OF ..
More
(Slip Opinion) Cite as: 552 U. S. ____ (2007) 1
Per Curiam
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 06–637
_________________
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
PETITIONER v. TOM F., ON BEHALF OF
GILBERT F., A MINOR CHILD
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[October 10, 2007]
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
JUSTICE KENNEDY took no part in the decision of this
case.
Source: CourtListener
