You are here

S.D.N.Y.

Displaying 1 - 10 of 96
Contains
Contains
Format: 2019
Greater than or equal to
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.​

Available Online Only

Ramratan v. New York City Board of Elections (Nicholas G. Garaufis and Dora L. Irizarry, 1:06-cv-4770), Bert v. New York City Board of Elections (Charles P. Sifton, 1:06-cv-4789), Brown v. Board of Elections (Kiyo A. Matsumoto, 1:08-cv-3512), Fischer v. Suffolk County Board of Elections (Joanna Seybert, 2:08-cv-4171), Minnus v. Board of Elections (Sandra L. Townes, 1:10-cv-3918), Fischer v. NYS Board of Elections (Joanna Seybert, 2:12-cv-5397), and Pidot v. New York State Board of Elections (Joseph F. Bianco, 2:16-cv-3527) (E.D.N.Y.) and Williams-Bey v. Commissioners of Elections (Katherine B. Forrest, 1:12-cv-3836), Thomas v. New York City Board of Elections (Shira A. Scheindlin, 1:12-cv-4223), and Moore v. McFadden (Edgardo Ramos, 1:14-cv-6643) (S.D.N.Y.)
In ten cases, district judges denied relief contrary to state court results to prospective candidates in the Eastern District of New York in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2016 and in the Southern District of New York in 2012 and 2014.
Topics: Getting on the ballot; matters for state courts; primary election; pro se party; case assignment; laches; recusal.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Available Online Only

The Patent Pilot Program (PPP), a ten-year pilot program addressing the assignment of patent cases in certain U.S. district courts, was established on January 4, 2011, by Pub. L. No. 111-349. At the request of the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, the Federal Judicial Center has been studying the PPP since the program's inception. This midpoint report presents key findings from the first five years of the program, gathering data for all patent cases filed on or after the individual PPP start date designated by each of the 13 current pilot courts through January 5, 2016. In that time, just over 12,000 patent cases were filed in the participating pilot districts.

Available Online Only

Pitcher v. Dutchess County Board of Elections (Kenneth M. Karas, S.D.N.Y. 7:12-cv-8017)
A federal complaint challenged the rejection of students’ voter registration applications for failure to list dormitory names or room numbers despite the inclusion of valid street and mailing addresses. On the day before the election, the district judge ordered acceptance of registration applications for the student plaintiffs and others similarly situated. Several months later, the suit was closed by consent decree and a stipulated award of attorney fees.
Topics: Student registration; registration procedures; class action; attorney fees.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Available Online Only

Ferone v. Board of Elections (Andrew L. Carter, Jr., S.D.N.Y. 1:12-cv-6342)
After the district judge denied immediate relief to plaintiffs seeking by federal action to reverse the exclusion from the ballot of a prospective candidate whose ballot application papers were defective, the plaintiffs dismissed their case voluntarily.
Topic: Getting on the ballot.

One of many Case Studies in Emergency Election Litigation.

Pages

Subscribe to S.D.N.Y.