Miller v. New York Stock Exch., 425 F.2d 1074 (2d Cir. 1970). · Go Syfert
Search
Miller v. New York Stock Exch., 425 F.2d 1074 (2d Cir. 1970). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Giordano v. Amity Regional High School District 5 ex rel. Chase (ctd, 1970-05-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1970 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1970 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Giordano v. Amity Regional High School District 5 ex rel. Chase
D. Conn. · 1970 · confidence medium
See Astro Cinema Corp. v. Mackell, 422 F.2d 293, 297-298 (2 Cir. 1970); Heaney v. Allen, 425 F.2d 869, 871-872 (2 Cir. 1970); Miller v. New York Stock Exchange, 425 F.2d 1074, 1075 (2 Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905 (1970); American Commuters Association v. Levitt, 405 F.2d 1148, 1150 (2 Cir. 1969); Fitzgerald v. Catherwood, 388 F.2d 400, 407-08 (2 Cir. 1968); Green v. Board of Elections, 380 F.2d 445, 448-49 (2 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1048 (1968).
discussed Cited "see" Chenkin v. BELLEVUE HOSP. CTR., NYC, ETC.
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thom v. New York Stock Exchange, 306 F.Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y.1969) aff’d sub nom Miller v. New York Stock Exchange, 425 F.2d 1074 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905 , 90 S.Ct. 1696 , 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970), in which this Court upheld New York State’s requirement that all employees of member firms trading on national security exchanges submit a set of their fingerprints to law enforcement authorities as a condition of employment.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Messing v. Bank of America, N.A.
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, e.g., Perkey v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 42 Cal.3d 185 , 228 Cal.Rptr. 169 , 721 P.2d 50 (1986) (state law requiring an individual to provide a fingerprint as a condition for obtaining a drivers license upheld); see also Thom v. New York Stock Exch., 306 F.Supp. 1002 (S.D.N.Y.1969), aff'd sub. nom., Miller v. New York Stock Exch., 425 F.2d 1074 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 905 , 90 S.Ct. 1696 , 26 L.Ed.2d 64 (1970)(state law requiring employees in the securities industry to provide fingerprints was upheld); People v. Stuller, 10 Cal.App.3d 582 , 89 Cal.Rptr. 158 (1970)(municipal…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United Low Income, Inc. v. Dean Fisher, M.D., Individually and in His Capacity as Commissioner of Health and Welfare for the State of Maine
1st Cir. · 1972 · signal: see also · confidence low
Since Merced the Second Circuit has taken what might be characterized as an even stronger approach, holding that the district court’s judgment of insubstantiality will not be questioned on appeal where after full consideration the court of appeals “unanimously agrees that the attack is without merit.” Heaney v. Allen, 425 F.2d 869 , 872 (2nd Cir. 1970); See also Miller v. New York Stock Exchange, 425 F.2d 1074 (2nd Cir. 1970), and Johnson v. New York State Education Department, 449 F.2d 871 (2nd Cir. 1971), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 409 U.S. 75 , 93 S.Ct. 259 , 34 L.Ed.2d 29…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Heaney v. Allen
2d Cir. · 1970 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Miller v. New York Stock Exchange, 2 Cir., 425 F.2d 1074 , decided January 2, 1970.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Heaney v. Allen
2d Cir. · 1970 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Miller v. New York Stock Exchange, 2 Cir., 425 F.2d 1074 , decided January 2, 1970. 2 Here the plaintiffs are doctors of chiropractic, and the statute is Article 132 of the New York Education Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 16, 6550-6565, which prohibits the practice of chiropractic without a license.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,550 Donald J. Miller
v.
New York Stock Exchange, American Stock Exchange, Paine, Webber, Jackson& Curtis, and Louis J. Lefkowitz, Individually and as Attorney General of Thestate of New York
34329.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
May 18, 1970.
425 F.2d 1074
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

425 F.2d 1074

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,550
Donald J. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, American Stock Exchange, Paine,
Webber, Jackson& Curtis, and Louis J. Lefkowitz,
individually and as Attorney General of
theState of New York,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 471, Docket 34329.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Dec. 19, 1969.
Decided Jan. 2, 1970, Certiorari Denied May 18, 1970, See 90
S.Ct. 1696.

Paul G. Chevigny, New York, N.Y. (New York Civil Liberties Union, New York, New York, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

Brenda Soloff, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, Albany, New York, and Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendant-appellee, Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York.

Andrew J. Connick, New York, N.Y. (Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, New York, N.Y. and Adlai S. Hardin, Jr., New York, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellee New York Stock Exchange.

Milton Weiss, New York, N.Y. (Beekman & Bogue, New York, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant-appellee Paine, Webber, Jackson and Curtis.

Before FRIENDLY, SMITH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[*~1074]1

This action was brought in the District Court for the Southern District of New York for declaratory and injunctive relief against the operation of Ch. 1071 of N.Y.Laws, 1969, codified as N.Y.General Business Law 359-e (12), McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 23-A. This provides that all persons employed in New York by a member or a member organization of a national security exchange registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or by a clearing corporation affiliated with any such registered exchange shall, as a condition of employment, be fingerprinted. The fingerprints so taken are to 'be promptly submitted to the attorney general for appropriate processing.' Judge Weinfeld denied plaintiff's request to convene a three-judge court, 28 U.S.C. 2281, and his motion for a temporary injunction, and dismissed the complaint.

2

We find it impossible to add to Judge Weinfeld's thorough and well-considered opinion, holding that the statute was a reasonable exercise of the State's power to deal with the serious problem of thefts in the securities business. There is, of course, the question, inevitably encountered in the mounting number of cases like this, whether even though we unanimously agree with the district judge, we must nevertheless reverse because the result was not so clearly predestined that he could dispense with having two other judges, possibly two of us, help him reach it-- and this even though the State, for whose benefit the three-judge provision was enacted, was quite content to have him act alone. On this vexing question we can only refer to what was said in Green v. Board of Elections of City of New York, 380 F.2d 445, 448-449 (2 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1048, 88 S.Ct. 768, 19 L.Ed.2d 840 (1968).

3

We add one further point: Plaintiff Miller submitted an affidavit in the district court alleging that, a few days after that court's decision, he was dismissed by his employer, Paine, Webber, Jackson and Curtis, specifically because of his having brought this suit. The judge denied his motion to stay the dismissal pending appeal. At the argument here counsel for the employer conceded that Miller's bringing this action was one cause of his dismissal, although avowedly not the sole one. Our affirmance is not to be taken as foreclosing Mr. Miller from advancing a claim that dismissal for asserting a constitutional contention in a court of the United States was unlawful. In saying this, we are not to be understood as holding that such a claim would be legally sustainable.

[*~1075]4

Affirmed.