Legal Opinion
Goldstein v. Cox
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided February 2, 1970No. 66PublishedCited by 61 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Marshall
Appellants are beneficiaries of New York decedents’ estates who live in Romania. Their shares of these estates have not been distributed to them, but have been paid into court for their benefit under § 2218 of the New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. Section 2218 authorizes the surrogate to order an alien’s share of a New York estate paid into court when it appears that the alien “would not have the benefit or use or control of the money or other property” constituting the share.1
In 1966, appellants filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Phillips v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
- Switzerland Cheese Assn., Inc. v. E. Horne's Market, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Zschernig v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok PoSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- Steffel v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Walters v. National Assn. of Radiation SurvivorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Abbott v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 2018
- Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Dávila v. Antilles Shipping, Inc.Supreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1999
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.