Goldstein v. Cox
Decision Date | 08 March 1968 |
Docket Number | Docket 31396.,No. 47,47 |
Citation | 391 F.2d 586 |
Parties | Anghel GOLDSTEIN, a/k/a Andrei Pietraru, Iuliu Nasta, a/k/a Julius Nasta and George Fundi, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. Joseph A. COX, and Samuel DiFalco, Surrogates of the County of New York, Edward S. Silver, Surrogate of the County of Kings, Christopher C. McGrath, Surrogate of the County of Bronx, John T. Clancy, Surrogate of the County of Queens, Arthur Levitt, State Comptroller, Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
John R. Vintilla, Cleveland, Ohio (Emanuel Eschwege, New York City, and Novak N. Marku, Canton, Ohio, on the brief), for appellants.
Daniel M. Cohen, Asst. Atty. Gen., New York City (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
Before MOORE, SMITH and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reconsideration Upon Remand by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Appellants, nationals and residents of Rumania, brought this action seeking an injunction restraining five New York surrogates from enforcing section 269-a of the New York Surrogate's Court Act, McKinney's Consol. Laws c. 59a, on the ground that it is unconstitutional as applied to them. Section 269-a provides:
The appellants' motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kish's Estate, In re
...affirmed. After the remand the Court of Appeals directed consideration of the constitutional issues by a three-judge court. 391 F.2d 586 (2d Cir. 1968). Also the Supreme Court later denied, 391 U.S. 604, 88 S.Ct. 1864, 20 L.Ed.2d 843 (1968), a motion for leave to file a petition for reheari......
-
Goldstein v. Cox
...of Appeals reversed the original order of the District Court, and remanded the case for consideration by a three-judge court. 391 F.2d 586 (C.A.2d Cir. 1968). Appellants then moved for summary judgment, urging that § 2218 was unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied, under the pri......
-
Bjarsch v. DiFalco
...the denial of a motion to convene a three-judge court. The fact that the three-judge panel convened by the Court of Appeals on remand (391 F.2d 586) has heard and determined, adversely, those plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, does not render these plaintiffs' claims First, while the ......
- Cutner v. Fried, 73 Civ. 227-LFM.