Carr v. New York, 371 U.S. 14 (1962). · Go Syfert
Carr v. New York, 371 U.S. 14 (1962). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: John Coby, II v. City of Tombstone, et al. (azd, 2025-11-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) John Coby, II v. City of Tombstone, et al.
D. Ariz. · 2025 · confidence medium
“Under Rule 15(a), courts should ‘freely’ grant leave to amend ‘when 11 justice so requires,’ and absent ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the 12 movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments . . . undue prejudice to the 13 opposing party . . . futility of the amendment, etc.’” Id. (quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 14 178, 182 (1962)). 15 II.
cited Cited "see" Wilson v. Whitestone Home Furnishings, LLC
E.D. Cal. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 14 178, 182 (1962). 15 III.
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…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Carr
v.
New York
265.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 8, 1962.
371 U.S. 14
Irwin N. Wilpon for appellant., Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York, and Paxton Blair, Solicitor General, for appellee.
Goldberg.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

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