Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Robert Gwathmey and William Durham, Suing On His Behalf and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Town of East Hampton, 512 F.2d 1318, 2d Cir. (1975)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views1 page
    The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit reconsidered its previous decision in light of new Supreme Court rulings regarding federal injunctions against state criminal proceedings. The Court had initially found a New York statute unconstitutional but was now affirming the district court's refusal to enjoin a state criminal proceeding against a plaintiff who had been arrested under that statute. The Court determined that a three-judge panel was not necessary since the statute had already been ruled unconstitutional, but that federal injunctions against ongoing state prosecutions were prohibited by recent Supreme Court precedent.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1975-03-20 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 512 F.2d 1318 Docket: 35160

    Original Title

    Robert Gwathmey and William Durham, Suing on His Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Town of East Hampton, 512 F.2d 1318, 2d Cir. (1975)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit reconsidered its previous decision in light of new Supreme Court rulings regarding federal injunctions against state criminal proceedings. The Court had initially found a New York statute unconstitutional but was now affirming the district court's refusal to enjoin a state criminal proceeding against a plaintiff who had been arrested under that statute. The Court determined that a three-judge panel was not necessary since the statute had already been ruled unconstitutional, but that federal injunctions against ongoing state prosecutions were prohibited by recent Supreme Court precedent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views1 page

    Robert Gwathmey and William Durham, Suing On His Behalf and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Town of East Hampton, 512 F.2d 1318, 2d Cir. (1975)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit reconsidered its previous decision in light of new Supreme Court rulings regarding federal injunctions against state criminal proceedings. The Court had initially found a New York statute unconstitutional but was now affirming the district court's refusal to enjoin a state criminal proceeding against a plaintiff who had been arrested under that statute. The Court determined that a three-judge panel was not necessary since the statute had already been ruled unconstitutional, but that federal injunctions against ongoing state prosecutions were prohibited by recent Supreme Court precedent.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    512 F.

    2d 1318

    Robert GWATHMEY and William Durham, suing on his


    behalf and
    on behalf of all others similarly situated,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 326, Docket 35160.

    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.


    Submitted March 13, 1975.
    Decided March 20, 1975.

    Before LUMBARD, WATERMAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.


    PER CURIAM:

    Our decision in this case dated December 24, 1970, 437 F.2d 351, was
    remanded by the Supreme Court on July 8, 1974, for reconsideration in light of
    Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), and
    Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 68 (1971).

    Plaintiffs initially sought the convening of a three-judge court to consider the


    constitutionality of N.Y.Gen.Bus.Law 136(a) and an injunction against the
    prosecution of Gwathmey who had been arrested for violating that statute and
    who was then free on bail pending a hearing. The district court denied both
    requests.

    Since we found the New York statute to be unconstitutional in Long Island


    Vietnam Moratorium Comm. v. Cahn, 437 F.2d 344 (2d Cir. 1970), affd., 418
    U.S. 906, 94 S.Ct. 3197, 41 L.Ed.2d 1153 (1974), there is no reason to convene
    a three-judge court. However, in light of Younger and Samuels, we now affirm
    the district court's refusal to enjoin an ongoing state criminal proceeding.

    You might also like