Umar v. New York State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission

New York Court of Appeals

Umar v. New York State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission

269 N.E.2d 825, 28 N.Y.2d 732, 321 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1446

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 269 N.E.2d 825 (Umar v. New York State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission) 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

Umar v. New York State Narcotic Addiction Control Commission, 269 N.E.2d 825, 28 N.Y.2d 732, 321 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1446 (N.Y. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed, without costs, and the respondent commis-' sion’s determination annulled in a memorandum. Memorandum: The order appealed from should be reversed, without costs, and the respondent’s determination suspending the petitioner for 15 days for insubordination annulled, on the ground that in the present context the respondent’s regulation that its male personnel “ shall not allow their hair to grow to an undue length (italics supplied) is so vague and uncertain as to offend against constitutional demands of due process. (See, e.g., Ashton v. Ken[733]*733tucky, 384 U. S. 195, 200; Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399, 402-403; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360; People v. O'Gorman, 274 N. Y. 284, 286-287; see, also, Westley v. Rossi, 305 F. Supp. 706, 713; Myers v. Arcata Union High School Dist., 269 Cal. App. 2d 549.) In this view we find it unnecessary to consider or pass upon the other constitutional arguments asserted by the petitioner. (See, e.g., Richards v. Thurston, 424 F. 2d 1281, 1284-1285, affg. 304 F. Supp. 449.)

Concur: Chief Judge Fold and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

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

Order reversed, without costs, and the respondent commis-' sion’s determination annulled in a memorandum. Memorandum: The order appealed from should be reversed, without costs, and the respondent’s determination suspending the petitioner for 15 days for insubordination annulled, on the ground that in the present context the respondent’s regulation that its male personnel “ shall not allow their hair to grow to an undue length (italics supplied) is so vague and uncertain as to offend against constitutional demands of due process. (See, e.g., Ashton v. Ken[733]*733tucky, 384 U. S. 195, 200; Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399, 402-403; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360; People v. O'Gorman, 274 N. Y. 284, 286-287; see, also, Westley v. Rossi, 305 F. Supp. 706, 713; Myers v. Arcata Union High School Dist., 269 Cal. App. 2d 549.) In this view we find it unnecessary to consider or pass upon the other constitutional arguments asserted by the petitioner. (See, e.g., Richards v. Thurston, 424 F. 2d 1281, 1284-1285, affg. 304 F. Supp. 449.)

Concur: Chief Judge Fold and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 N.E.2d 825, 28 N.Y.2d 732, 321 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/umar-v-new-york-state-narcotic-addiction-control-commission-ny-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack