BERGERMAN ET AL.

v.

LINDSAY, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Knapp v. Cardwell, 667 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir. 1982)
  …. Appellants do not complain of irregularities in the proceedings in the Arizona Court; they merely object to its choice of alternatives. See Watermeier v. Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District, 308 F.Supp. 273, 277-78 (E.D.La.1969), aff’d mem., 398 U.S. 955, 90 S.Ct. 2172, 26 L.Ed.2d 539 (1970). Further support for the rejection of appellants’ argument is found in Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977), where a similar claim under the ex post facto clause was rejected.…
• Morris v. The Bd. OF Estimate, 707 F.2d 686 (2d Cir. 1983)
  …re not elected to the Board itself. They argue further that this Cpurt should defer to the decision of the New York Court of Appeals in Bergerman v. Lindsay, 25 N.Y.2d 405, 306 N.Y.S.2d 898, 255 N.E. 2d 142 (1969), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 398 U.S. 955, 90 S.Ct. 2173, 26 L.Ed.2d 540 (1970), which upheld the constitutionality of the Board’s electoral scheme as it was at the time. Finally, appellees urge that the unique nature of the Board presents the type of “special circumstances” that the Suprem…

  ← 1 / 2 →