-
- Marianne E. Engblom and Charles E. Palmer, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Hugh L. Carey, Governor of the State of New York, Richard D. Hongisto, Acting Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services, Joseph C. Snow, Superintendent of the Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, Major-General Vito J. Castellano, Chief of Staff To the Governor of New York, New York National Guard, Lieutenant-Colonel Justin M. Queally, an Officer of the 106Th Maintenance Battalion of the New York National Guard, Captain 'John' Drew, an Officer of the 101St Signal Battalion of the New York National Guard, and Various Officers and Enlisted Men, Members of the New York National Guard, Defendants-Appellees., 677 F.2d 957 (2nd Cir. 1982)
Alan N. Sussman, Kingston, N. Y. (Ricken, Goldman, Sussman & Blythe, Kingston, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Arlene R. Silverman, A...
-
Richard J. Goldman, New York City (Ricken, Goldman, Sussman & Blythe, Alan N. Sussman, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Arlene ...
-
... In fact, save for the curious case of Engblom v. Carey, 677 F. 2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on remand,...
-
§ 23.1 Civil Rights Protections: The Second, Third & Seventh Amendments & The Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV, § 1. § 23.1.1 The Second Amendment: Right to Bear Arms. § 23.1.2 The Third Amendment: Protection Against Quartering of Soldiers In Individuals' Homes. § 23.1.3 The Seventh Amendment: Right to Jury Trial in Actions At Common Law. § 23.1.4 The Full Faith and Credit Clause. § 23.2 Criminal Defendants' Rights. § 23.2.1 The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. § 23.2.1.1 The Fourth Amendment: Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures. § 23.2.1.2 The Fifth Amendment: Grand Jury Indictment, Double Jeopardy, Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, and Due Process of Law. A. Requirement of Grand Jury Indictment. B. Protection Against Double Jeopardy. C. Priv...
... . Engblom v. Carey, 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), aff'd, ...
-
...Sonquist, 699 F.2d 864 (CA7 1983); Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (CA2 1982); Rutledge v. Ari...
-
- Custer County Action Association; National Airspace Coalition; Open Space Alliance; the Wilderness Society; Board of Directors of Moffat Consolidated School District No. 2; Custer County Airport Authority; Fremont County Airport; the Board of the Town of Crestone; the Board of County Commissioners of Custer County; the Board of County Commissioners of Fremont County, Colorado; the Board of County Commissioners of Saguache County, Colorado; the Spiritual Life Institute; La Veta Peace of Air Alliance; Crestone Moffat Business Association; Huerfano Valley Citizens Alliance; Rural Alliance for Military Accountability; Wolf Springs Ranches, Inc.; the Historic Pines Ranch; Custer County Bison; Karen G. Woronoff; David S. Woronoff, Petitioners, v. Jane F. Garvey, as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration; and United States Air Force Major General Paul A. Weaver, Jr., as Director of the Air National Guard, Respondents., 256 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 2001)
..., without the consent of the Owner.'" Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957, 961-62 (2d Cir. 1982). Cit...
-
Introduction II. How And Why Swift Failed To Adequately Address Separation Of Powers And Federalism Problems Raised By The Rules Of Decision Act And The Superiority Of The Proposed "Irresistible Incentive" Test As A Means Of Determining Both The Existence And Identity Of Substantive State Rights III. Swift Failed To Adequately Address Separation Of Powers And Federalism Issues Raised By The Rules Of Decision Act And Thereby Undermined Legitimate State Interest A. Swift v. Tyson B. Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque C. Burgess v. Seligman D. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Baugh E. Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co. F. Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. IV. The Promise Of ERIE To Adequately Address Separation Of Powers And Federalism Issues Raised By The Rules O...
...Cf. Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957, 961 (2d Cir. 1982) (Third ...
-
... interpretation of the Third Amendment in Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (1982). Engblom raised the ...
-
...189, 97 L.Ed. 200 (1952), 563 . Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed.2d...697, 74 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983), 952, 959 . Engblom v. Carey, 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), aff'd ...
-
In recent years, the government and private actors have applied state and federal housing-discrimination statutes to shared-livingarrangements. These statutes limit the factors that an individual may consider in choosing a roommate or housemate. This limitation can compel an individual to live with someone with whom she is not comfortable sharing a home or with whom she does not care to live. An individual's right to choose the people with whom she shares a living arrangement is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Constitution. Therefore, since legislators have not narrowly tailored housing-discrimination statutes to protect the constitutional freedoms that provide the foundations for shared living, existing housing-discrimination law is unconstitutional insofar as it limits...
.... U.S. Const. amend. III; Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957, 966-67 (2d Cir. 1982) (Kau...