Legal Opinion
Royster v. McGinnis
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided January 21, 1971No. 70 Civ. 4365PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
LASKER, District Judge.
Plaintiffs James Royster and Percy Rutherford, New York State prisoners in the Auburn and Ossining Correction Facilities, respectively, bring this class action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated seeking a declaratory judgment that Section 230(3) of the New York Correction Law, McKinney’s Consol.Laws, c. 43, under which their “good time” was computed, is unconstitutional, and for an injunction against the alleged discriminatory practices pursued by defendants in application of that statute.
This suit is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the “Civil Rights…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Rigney v. HendrickCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
- John Latham and Rachel Greene v. John J. Tynan, Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, State of ConnecticutCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1970
- Morris v. CrumlishDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1965
- Perez v. FolletteNew York Supreme Court · 1968
- Phipps v. McGinnisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Royster v. McGinnisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1971
- Royster v. McGinnisDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1971