|
|
Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U.S. 471 (1970)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U.S. 471 (1970)
Goldstein v. Cox No. 66 Argued November 17, 1969 Decided January 26, 1970 396 U.S. 471
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Section 2218 of the New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act authorizes the surrogate to order an alien’s share of a New York estate paid into court when it appears that the alien "would not have the benefit or use or control of the money or property" constituting the share. Appellants, who live in Romania and are beneficiaries of New York decedents’ estates and whose shares were paid into court for their benefit under § 2218, filed a complaint challenging its constitutionality and seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief against its operation. In the three-judge District Court which was convened, appellants moved for summary judgment, contending that, under Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U.S. 429, § 2218 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, and requesting "the relief prayed for in the complaint." Appellants filed no separate application for a preliminary injunction, and have not urged the appropriateness of temporary relief for the release of the court-held funds. The District Court denied summary judgment, but did not dismiss the complaint as urged by appellees, surrogates of several New York counties. Appellants appealed to this Court from the order denying summary judgment, claiming that this Court has jurisdiction by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1253, which, in pertinent part, provides for an appeal
to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying . . . an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action . . . required by an Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.
Held: The only interlocutory orders that this Court has power to review under § 1253 are those granting or denying preliminary injunctions, and therefore this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the District Court’s interlocutory order, which involved no question of preliminary injunctive relief. Pp. 475-479.
299 F.Supp. 1389, appeal dismissed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U.S. 471 (1970) in 396 U.S. 471 396 U.S. 472. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R7FNJ1W1PSU21Y4.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U.S. 471 (1970), in 396 U.S. 471, page 396 U.S. 472. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R7FNJ1W1PSU21Y4.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U.S. 471 (1970). cited in 1970, 396 U.S. 471, pp.396 U.S. 472. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=R7FNJ1W1PSU21Y4.
|