In re Huie

New York Court of Appeals

In re Huie

238 N.E.2d 503, 21 N.Y.2d 1036, 291 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1435

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 18, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 238 N.E.2d 503 (In re Huie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Huie, 238 N.E.2d 503, 21 N.Y.2d 1036, 291 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1435 (N.Y. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether under Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Milwaukee (352 U. S. 948) we were bound, despite our own procedural rule that reargument on the basis of a subsequent appellate court decision may not be granted by our lower courts after the time to appeal from their decisions has elapsed, to consider claimant’s contention that the form of notice provided herein was insufficient under Schroeder v. City of New York (371 U. S. 208). The Court of Appeals, in passing upon this contention, held that Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Milwaukee {supra) did not require that our rule as to what may be considered on such a motion for reargument be [1037]*1037modified and therefore did not reach the question of the applicability of Schroeder v. City of New York {supra). [See 20 N Y 2d 568.]

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

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and, when returned, it will be amended by adding thereto the following: Upon the appeal herein there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz.: Whether under Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Milwaukee (352 U. S. 948) we were bound, despite our own procedural rule that reargument on the basis of a subsequent appellate court decision may not be granted by our lower courts after the time to appeal from their decisions has elapsed, to consider claimant’s contention that the form of notice provided herein was insufficient under Schroeder v. City of New York (371 U. S. 208). The Court of Appeals, in passing upon this contention, held that Wisconsin Elec. Power Co. v. Milwaukee {supra) did not require that our rule as to what may be considered on such a motion for reargument be [1037]*1037modified and therefore did not reach the question of the applicability of Schroeder v. City of New York {supra). [See 20 N Y 2d 568.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 N.E.2d 503, 21 N.Y.2d 1036, 291 N.Y.S.2d 14, 1968 N.Y. LEXIS 1435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-huie-ny-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack