SHELOFSKY ET AL.

v.

HELSBY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Sotomayor, 592 F.2d 1219 (2d Cir. 1979)
  …er standard than would a federal court dealing with the interpretation of the federal wiretap statute, citing as its only authority California v. Jones, 30 Cal.App.3d 852, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749, appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 414 U.S. 804, 94 S.Ct. 163, 38 L.Ed.2d 40 (1973).10 In any event, the wiretaps in the instant case were not the result of a joint investigation but were solely the product of state action. Manfredi was followed by United States v. Rizzo, 491 F. 2d 215 (2d Cir.…
• Eskel Norbeck v. Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 545 F.2d 63 (8th Cir. 1976)
  …ins and lieutenants from joining a union which consisted of rank and file firefighters who the officers were hired to supervise, discipline and evaluate. See also Shelofsky v. Helsby, 32 N.Y.2d 54, 343 N.Y.S.2d 98, 295 N.E. 2d 774, appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 804, 94 S.Ct. 60, 38 L.Ed.2d 41 (1973). Applying these principles, we conclude that the school district’s interest in the maintenance of an efficient school administration was sufficient to justify the nonrenewal of Norbeck’s contract. The evidence de…
• United States v. Hall, 543 F.2d 1229 (9th Cir. 1976)
  …to be “unlawful” under California’s § 631 and the evidence from it has been ruled inadmissible in California court proceedings. People v. Jones, 30 Cal.App.3d 852, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749 (1973), appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 414 U.S. 804, 94 S.Ct. 163, 38 L.Ed.2d 40 (1973); see People v. Conklin, 12 Cal.3d 259, 114 Cal.Rptr. 241, 522 P. 2d 1049 (1974), appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 419 U.S. 1064, 95 S.Ct. 652, 42 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974); Halpin v. [*1232] Sup…

  ← 1 / 4 →