Gwathmey v. Town of East Hampton

Second Circuit

Gwathmey v. Town of East Hampton

512 F.2d 1318

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 1975

DocketNo. 326, Docket 35160

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 512 F.2d 1318 (Gwathmey v. Town of East Hampton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gwathmey v. Town of East Hampton, 512 F.2d 1318 (2d Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

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 688 (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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 688 (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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

512 F.2d 1318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gwathmey-v-town-of-east-hampton-ca2-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack