You are here

S.D.N.Y.

Displaying 1 - 10 of 100
Contains
Contains
Format: 2020
Greater than or equal to
Available Online Only

Yang v. N.Y. State Bd. of Elections (Analisa Torres, S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-3325)
Because all but one candidate for a party’s presidential nomination had announced suspension of their campaigns, and in light of a global infectious pandemic, election officials in New York canceled the party’s 2020 presidential primary election, leaving in place primary elections for other offices in most of the state’s counties. A district judge and the court of appeals concluded that it was unconstitutional to remove from the ballots candidates who had merely suspended their campaigns.
Subject: Election dates. Topics: Enjoining elections; COVID-19; primary election; getting on the ballot; intervention; absentee ballots; party procedures; class action.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Available Online Only

Powell v. Benson (Gershwin A. Drain, E.D. Mich. 2:20-cv-11023), Drenth v. Boockvar (Jennifer P. Wilson, M.D. Pa. 1:20-cv-829), and Hernandez v. New York State Board of Elections (Lewis J. Liman, S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-4003)
In light of the greater need for absentee voting in 2020 because of the COVID-19 global infectious pandemic, lawsuits in three states resulted in electronic at-home absentee voting for blind voters that protected the secrecy of their ballots.
Subject: Absentee and early voting. Topics: COVID-19; absentee ballots; Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA); class action; primary election.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Available Online Only

Murray v. Cuomo (Mary Kay Vyskocil, S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-3571)
A plaintiff, whose ballot petition signatures for a primary election were ruled invalid because the signatures had not been collected or witnessed by a member of the party, was denied relief from a signature requirement that was both shortened in time and in number because of an infectious pandemic.
Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; COVID-19; matters for state courts; primary election; party procedures.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Available Online Only

Abulafia v. Richman (Katherine Polk Failla, S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-3547)
Five candidates who challenged their exclusion from primary election ballots were denied immediate relief for reasons explained orally but not included in the publicly accessible record.
Subject: Getting on the ballot. Topics: Getting on the ballot; primary election.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Available Online Only

Hill v. Williams (1:16-cv-2627) and Harlos v. Morrissey (1:16-cv-2649) (Christine M. Arguello, D. Colo.), Silberberg v. Board of Elections (P. Kevin Castel, S.D.N.Y. 1:16-cv-8336), and ACLU of Northern California v. Padilla (William Alsup, N.D. Cal. 3:16-cv-6287)
From eight to 15 days before the 2016 general election, federal actions in three states sought relief from proscriptions on “ballot selfies”—photographs of ballots taken by voters completing them. These actions and previous actions in three other states pitted freedom of expression against the secret ballot. Some district and circuit judges favored freedom of expression; others favored the secret ballot.
Subject: Polling place activities. Topics: Laches; case assignment.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

The Advisory Group to the New York State–Federal Judicial Council completed a best practices document on interpreters in federal and New York state courts that was approved on May 18, 2015 by the New York State–Federal Judicial Council. That document is presented here as part of a set of CLE materials on vulnerable populations. 

The Federal Judicial Center did not contribute to this document. It is presented as an example of work from a state–federal judicial council.

This document is part of Federal and State Court Cooperation, a Special Topic Webpage.

The Advisory Group to the New York State–Federal Judicial Council analyzed New York State and federal courts’ treatment of prelitigation conduct involving the creation, retention, and destruction of electronically stored information (ESI) to determine whether the courts were consistent and harmonious when addressing these issues.

The report contains the group’s findings on the similarities and differences between the current New York State and federal laws that govern the prelitigation duty to preserve ESI, as well as its findings on whether the differences may lead to inconsistent obligations in state and federal courts and on possible resolutions to these inconsistencies.

The Federal Judicial Center did not contribute to this document. It is presented as an example of work from a state–federal judicial council.

This document is part of Federal and State Court Cooperation, a Special Topic Webpage.​

Available Online Only

New York Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh (Paul A. Crotty, S.D.N.Y. 1:13-cv-6769)
On September 25, 2013, a political action committee filed a federal complaint challenging campaign contribution limits. On October 17, the district judge denied a preliminary injunction against decades-old limits challenged in an emergency case that could have been brought earlier. On October 24, the court of appeals ordered the district judge to issue a preliminary injunction. Six months later, the district judge awarded the political action committee summary judgment, and the parties later agreed to an attorney fee award of $360,000.
Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: Campaign finance; interlocutory appeal; laches; attorney fees.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

In 2016, the New York State–Federal Judicial Council prepared this report on the coordination of discovery between New York state and federal courts. 

The Federal Judicial Center did not contribute to this document. It is presented as an example of work from a state–federal judicial council. 

This document is part of Federal and State Court Cooperation, a Special Topic Webpage.

This handbook was developed by the Advisory Group to the New York State and Federal Judicial Council to provide readily accessible guidance to attorneys working on cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit who face the possibility that their clients or other parties may request the federal court to refer state law issues to the New York Court of Appeals or the possibility that the Second Circuit may certify state law questions sua sponte.

The Federal Judicial Center did not contribute to this document. It is presented as an example of work from a state–federal judicial council.

This document is part of Federal and State Court Cooperation, a Special Topic Webpage.​

Pages

Subscribe to S.D.N.Y.