Miller v. New York Stock Exchange
| Decision Date | 02 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket 34329.,No. 471,471 |
| Citation | 425 F.2d 1074 |
| Parties | Donald J. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, American Stock Exchange, Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis, and Louis J. Lefkowitz, individually and as Attorney General of the State of New York, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Paul G. Chevigny, New York, N. Y. (New York Civil Liberties Union, New York, New York, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Brenda Soloff, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Albany, New York, and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendant-appellee, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York.
Andrew J. Connick, New York, N. Y. (Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, New York, N.Y. and Adlai S. Hardin, Jr., New York, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellee New York Stock Exchange.
Milton Weiss, New York, N. Y. (Beekman & Bogue, New York, N. Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellee Paine, Webber, Jackson and Curtis.
Before FRIENDLY, SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Certiorari Denied May 18, 1970. See 90 S.Ct. 1696.
This action was brought in the District Court for the Southern District of New York for declaratory and injunctive relief against the operation of Ch. 1071 of N. Y.Laws, 1969, codified as N.Y.General Business Law § 359-e (12), McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 23-A. This provides that all persons employed in New York by a member or a member organization of a national security exchange registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or by a clearing corporation affiliated with any such registered exchange shall, as a condition of employment, be fingerprinted. The fingerprints so taken are to "be promptly submitted to the attorney general for appropriate processing." Judge Weinfeld denied plaintiff's request to convene a three-judge court, 28 U.S.C. § 2281, and his motion for a temporary injunction, and dismissed the complaint.
We find it impossible to add to Judge Weinfeld's thorough and well-considered opinion, holding that the statute was a reasonable exercise of the State's power to deal with the serious problem of thefts in the securities business. There is, of course, the question, inevitably encountered in the mounting number of cases like this, whether even though we unanimously agree with the district judge, we must nevertheless reverse because the result was not so clearly predestined that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perkey v. Department of Motor Vehicles
...district court in Thom v. New York Stock Exchange (S.D.N.Y.1969) 306 F.Supp. 1002, 1011, affirmed sub nom. Miller v. New York Stock Exchange (2d Cir.1970) 425 F.2d 1074, certiorari denied (1970) 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64. In that case, a New York statute requiring fingerpri......
-
Davis v. Balson
...S.Ct. 450, 30 L.Ed.2d 369 (1971); Thom v. New York Stock Exchange, 306 F.Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y.1969), aff'd sub nom., Miller v. New York Stock Exchange, 425 F.2d 1074 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 Nor does the Court find merit in plaintiffs' contention th......
-
Industrial Foundation of the South v. Texas Indus. Acc. Bd.
...94 S.Ct. 102, 38 L.Ed.2d 90 (1973); Thom v. New York Stock Exchange, 306 F.Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y.1969), Affirmed sub nom. Miller v. NYSE, 425 F.2d 1074 (2nd Cir. 1970), Cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905, 90 S.Ct. 1696, 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970); Lamont v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 269 F.Supp. 880 (......
-
McLat v. Longo
...Cir. 1971) and Thorn v. New York Stock Exchange, 306 F.Supp. 1002 (S.D. N.Y. 1969), aff'd per curiam sub nom.; Miller v. New York Stock Exchange, 425 F.2d 1074 (2nd Cir. 1970). 5. Maggiore Bakery, Inc. v. Esperdy, 238 F.Supp. 374 (S.D. N.Y. 1964), and Lechich v. Einaldi, 246 F.Supp. 675 (D.......