ABRAMS ET AL.
v.
VAN SCHAICK, SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging New York's Superintendent of Insurance's authority to administer reorganization plans for guaranteed participating certificates issued by the New York Title and Mortgage Company. The Court found the appeal presented no substantial federal question, reasoning that the case involved only speculative harm since no reorganization plan affecting the appellants had yet been promulgated.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The Court of Appeals of the State of New York reversed an order of the Special Term of the Supreme Court which enjoined the Superintendent of Insurance from making any payments for expenditures incurred in connection with plans of reorganization promulgated under Chapter 745 of the Laws of 1933 relating to guaranteed participating certificates sold by the New York Title and Mortgage Company. The motion for injunction, denied by the Court of Appeals, was made in advance of the promulgation of a plan by the Superintendent of Insurance applicable to the interests of the appellants. Whether, if ,a plan of reorganization is promulgated by the Superintendent of Insurance it will be approved by the Court as required by the statute, or whether, if so approved, it will be opposed by certificate holders, or will receive the assent of the present appellants, or will operate to deprive them of any asserted constitutional right, are matters of conjecture.
The appeal is dismissed tor the want of a substantial federal question. Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U. S. 33, 39; California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308, 314; Stearns v. Wood, 236 U. S. 75, 78; Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U. S. 439, 449.
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1936)…ohnston, 259.U. S. 13, 15. 2. The Court will not “anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.” [*347] Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co. v. Emigration Commissioners, 113 U. S. 33, 39;5 Abrams v. Van Schaick, 293 U. S. 188; Wilshire Oil Co. v. United States, 295 U. S. 100. “It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.” Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 295. 3. The Court wi…
-
Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1975)…ed States, 250 U. S. 273, 279 (1919). “The Court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.’ Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co. v. Emigration Commissioners, 113 U. S. 33, 39; Abrams v. Van Schaick, 293 U. S. 188; Wilshire Oil Co. v. United States, 295 U. S. 100. It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.' Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 295.” Ashwander v. Ten…
-
Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1936)…in varying contingencies is premature and hence unwise. “The court will not ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it.’ Steamship Co. v. Emigration Commissioners, 113 U. S. 33, 39; Abrams v. Van Schaick, 293 U. S. 188; Wilshire Oil Co. v. United States, 295 U. S. 100. ‘It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.’ Burton v. United States, 196 U. S. 283, 295.” Per Brandeis, J…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Liverpool v. Comm'rs of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1885)
- California v. San Pablo & Tulare R.R. Co., 149 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1893)
- Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1930)
- Lieutenant Colonel Stearns v. Brigadier General Wood, 236 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1915)