Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. State

288 N.E.2d 811, 31 N.Y.2d 678, 336 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 1113
New York Court of Appeals·Decided September 28, 1972·No. Claim No. 45976·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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 there was presented and necessarily passed upon a question under the Constitution of the United States, viz;: Whether lack of a remedy in one proceeding rather than two to declare the licensing statute invalid and also to obtain a refund of licensing fees already paid violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals considered this issue and held that there was no denial of claimant’s constitutional rights (30 N Y 2d 415).

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

Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. State, 288 N.E.2d 811, 31 N.Y.2d 678, 336 N.Y.S.2d 911, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 1113 (N.Y. 1972).

288 N.E.2d 811 (Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kramer ex rel. estate of Chin v. Chin (In re Chin)
492 B.R. 117 (E.D. New York, 2013)
Onanuga v. Pfizer, Inc.
369 F. Supp. 2d 491 (S.D. New York, 2005)
State of NY v. SCA Services, Inc.
761 F. Supp. 14 (S.D. New York, 1999)
Town of Oyster Bay v. Occidental Chemical Corp.
987 F. Supp. 182 (E.D. New York, 1997)
National Bank of Canada v. Artex Industries, Inc.
627 F. Supp. 610 (S.D. New York, 1986)