green
Positive treatment
1.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Cernuda v. Heavey
See Government’s Memorandum at 20-21 (citing Teague v. Regional Commissioner of Customs, 404 F.2d 441, 445 (2d Cir.1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 977 , 89 S.Ct. 1457 , 22 L.Ed.2d 756 (1969) (regulations governing book imports from China and North Vietnam had only incidental First Amendment effect, with primary purpose to restrict dollar flow to hostile nations); American Documentary Films, Inc. v. Secretary of Treasury, 344 F.Supp. 703 (S.D.N.Y.1972) (rejecting TWEA First Amendment challenge when government refused to issue retroactive license, because film distributor would not divulge sourc…
cited
Cited "see"
Tole S.A. v. Miller
Accord Teague v. Regional Commissioner of Customs, 404 F.2d 441 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 977 , 89 S.Ct. 1457 , 22 L.Ed.2d 756 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
Veterans and Reservists for Peace in Vietnam v. Regional Commissioner of Customs, Region II and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States
See Teague v. Regional Commissioner of Customs, 404 F.2d 441 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 977 , 89 S.Ct. 1457 , 22 L.Ed.2d 756 (1969); Sardino v. Federal Reserve Bank, 361 F.2d 106 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 898 , 87 S.Ct. 203 , 17 L.Ed .2d 130 (1968). 5 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
OTTLEY
v.
LONG ISLAND COLLEGE HOSPITAL
v.
LONG ISLAND COLLEGE HOSPITAL
No. 1045.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 21, 1969.
Stephen C. Vladeck and Judith P. Vladeck for appellants., Theodore R. Iserman and Frederick T. Shea for appellee., Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney General of New York, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Maria L. Marcus and Amy Juviler, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Attorney General of New York as amicus curiae in support of appellants.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.