SAMUELS ET AL.

v.

MACKELL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF QUEENS COUNTY, ET AL.; AND FERNANDEZ V. MACKELL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF QUEENS COUNTY, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of N.Y., 397 U.S. 664 (U.S. 1970)
  …which under the Fourteenth Amendment is binding on the States.2 Appellee’s motion for summary judgment was granted and the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed. We noted probable jurisdiction, 395 U. S. 957 (1969), and affirm. I Prior opinions of this Court have discussed the development and historical background of the First Amendment in detail. See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1 (1947); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 (1962). It would th…
• City OF Chicago v. United States, 396 U.S. 162 (U.S. 1969)
  …ld that decisions terminating investigations under § 13a (1) are not “orders” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1336 (a).2 294 F. Supp. 1103, 1106. The cases are here on direct appeal, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1253, 2325, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 395 U. S. 957. As stated in Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140, we start with the presumption that aggrieved persons may obtain review of administrative decisions unless there is “persuasive reason to believe” that Congress had no such purpose. C…