Honeywood v. Rockefeller, 371 U.S. 1 (1962). · Go Syfert
Search
Honeywood v. Rockefeller, 371 U.S. 1 (1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
41 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 19 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Davis v. City of National City (casd, 2020-11-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1900 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1900 1963 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Davis v. City of National City
S.D. Cal. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Foman v. David, 371 U.S. 1 178 , 181–82 (1962). 2 III.
discussed Cited "see" Nova v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Sanders v. United States, 371 U.S. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); Lawson v. State, 231 So.2d 205 (Fla. 1970); Flores v. Wainwright, 240 So.2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Richardson v. State, 202 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Weeks v. State, 201 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Hall v. State, 183 So.2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Piehl v. State, 173 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), quashed on other grounds, 184 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1966).
discussed Cited "see" Nova v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Sanders v. United States, 371 U.S. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 (1963); Lawson v. State, 231 So.2d 205 (Fla. 1970); Flores v. Wainwright, 240 So.2d 816 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Richardson v. State, 202 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Weeks v. State, 201 So.2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Hall v. State, 183 So.2d 277 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Piehl v. State, 173 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), quashed on other grounds, 184 So.2d 417 (Fla.1966).
discussed Cited "see" Trent Boyes v. United States
5th Cir. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See memorandum opinion in Boyes v. United States, 372 U.S. 242 , 10 L.Ed.2d 409 , wherein the Supreme Court by per curiam order vacated judgment of this court, granted certiorari, leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and remanded the case to the district court for further consideration in the light of Sanders v. United States, 371 U.S. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1048 .
cited Cited "see" F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Director of Division of Taxation of the Department of the Treasury
N.J. · 1965 · signal: see · confidence high
See Household Finance Corporation v. Director of Division of Taxation, 36 N. J. 353 (1962), appeal dismissed, cert. den. 371 U. S. 13 , 83 S. Ct. 41 , 9 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ryan v. NEW JERSEY RACING COM'N
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Carr v. State of New York, 15 A.D. 2d 709 , 223 N.Y.S. 2d 229 (App.Div.1962), appl. dism. 371 U.S. 14 , 83 S.Ct. 44 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 49 (1962) (stating that by restricting payment of prizes to "holder[s] of winning tickets[,]" the legislature intended to exclude one who was a holder of a winning ticket or one who is entitled to be but is not presently a holder of a winning ticket); State v. Nebraska State Bd. of Agric., 217 Neb. 622 , 350 N.W. 2d 535 (1984) ("A pari-mutuel ticket is an instrument payable on demand when the demand is accompanied by presentation of the ticket."); Register…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Garfield Trust Co. v. Director, Division of Taxation
N.J. · 1986 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare this Court's remark in Household Finance Corp. v. Director of Div. of Taxation, 36 N.J. 353, 358 , app. dism., 371 U.S. 13 , 83 S.Ct. 41 , 9 L.Ed.2d 49 (1962): While the “excise tax may gather the hue of a property tax ... it is the franchise to do local business that is being valued rather than any specific piece of property devoted to it.” (quoted in Motor Finance Corp. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 129 N.J.Super. 19, 23 (App.Div.1974)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
HONEYWOOD Et Al.
v.
ROCKEFELLER, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK, Et Al.
177.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 8, 1962.
371 U.S. 1
Moses M. Falk for appellants., Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York,, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General,, Irving Galt, Assistant Solicitor General, and Sheldon, Raab, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
Goldberg.
Cited by 16 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Since we agree with the District Court, from our examination of the record, “that no good cause has been shown for the granting of a preliminary injunction in advance of a trial upon which the facts necessary for a determination of the merits of this action can be fully developed,” the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.