Legal Opinion
Luessenhop v. Clinton County
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided October 11, 2006No. Docket Nos. 05-4083-cv (L); 06-0093-cv (CON); 06-0704-cv (CON); 06-2180-cv (CON)PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MESKILL, Circuit Judge:
These consolidated appeals raise two issues. First, whether federal courts, consistent with the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 (2006), have jurisdiction to adjudicate a taxpayer’s challenge that the notice of foreclosure provided by the taxing authority of a state is constitutionally inadequate. We conclude that the district courts have jurisdiction. Second, whether the taxpayers in this consolidated appeal were provided with constitutionally adequate notice. Because three of the four lower court judgments dismissed the taxpayers’ actions on jurisdictional…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Pierce v. UnderwoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Dusenbery v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Jones v. FlowersSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- Spinelli v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2009
- Miner v. Clinton County, NYCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
- Dorce v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2021
- Madu, Edozie & Madu, P.C. v. Socketworks Ltd. NigeriaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
- In re GLG Life Tech Corp. Securities LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2012
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.