Legal Opinion
Hickerson v. City of New York
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided June 27, 1996No. 96 Civ. 2203 (MGC), 96 Civ. 2204 (MGC)PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CEDARBAUM, District Judge.
Plaintiffs in these two actions challenge the constitutionality of a recent amendment to the New York City zoning resolution which regulates the zoning of “adult establishments.” Defendants, the City of New York and three City officials, removed the actions to this Court because the complaints assert claims under the United States Constitution as well as the New York State Constitution. Plaintiffs move to remand the actions, including the federal constitutional claims, to the state court. For the reasons that follow, these cases warrant abstention under the doctrine…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Burford v. Sun Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Stringfellow's of New York, Ltd. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1998
- Hickerson v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- City of New Rochelle v. Town of MamaroneckDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2000
- Floyd v. City of New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
- Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. v. CurreyDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2013
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.