County of Rockland v. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1983)

See also United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 987 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983) (“The court need not give a proposed instruction if the essential points are covered by those that are given.”).

See United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 982 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983) (“the Government is under no duty to seek out witnesses”).

See County of Rockland v. NRC, 709 F. 2d 766 , 774 (CA2), cert. denied, 464 U. S. 993 (1983); Rockford County League of Women Voters v. NRC, 679 F. 2d 1218, 1219-1221 (CA7 1982).

See Stem v. Shouldice, 706 F.2d 742, 746 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 487 , 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983); Calhoun v. United States, 647 F.2d 6, 8-10 (9th Cir.1981).

See County of Rockland v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 709 F.2d 766, 769 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 485 , 78 L.Ed.2d 681 (1983).

See e.g., Stern v. Shouldice, 706 F.2d 742 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 487 , 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983) (non-tenured professor's advice to student to seek legal advice about suspension protected under First Amendment); Hildebrand v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State Univ., 662 F.2d 439 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1760 , 72 L.Ed.2d 168 (1982) (professor's tenure denial based, in part, on professor's protected speech did not provi…

See e.g., Stern v. Shouldice, 706 F.2d 742 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 487 , 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983) (non-tenured professor’s advice to student to seek legal advice about suspension protected under First Amendment); Hildebrand v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State Univ., 662 F.2d 439 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 910 , 102 S.Ct. 1760 , 72 L.Ed.2d 168 (1982) (professor’s tenure denial based, in part, on professor’s protected speech did not provi…

See also Stern v. Shouldice, 706 F.2d 742, 747 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 (1983).

See also United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 988-89 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983).

In addressing this claim, our task is to “view[ ] the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), and to sustain the verdict if "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (original emphasis); accord United States v. Martorano, 709 F.2d 863, 866 (3d Cir.) (“When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged i…

See also United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 984 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983); United States v. DeGudino, 722 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir.1983); United States v. Rodgers, 755 F.2d 533 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1085 (1985). ♦ * * # * * Finding no harmful error nor abuse of discretion in the trial of this case, we conclude that the disposition below should be affirmed and the judgment left to stand.

See Stern v. Shouldice, 706 F.2d 742, 746-47 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 487 , 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983); Goodman v. Heublein, Inc., 682 F.2d 44, 45-47 (2d Cir.1982); Scola v. Boat Frances, R., Inc., 618 F.2d 147, 152-54 (1st Cir.1980).

See Stern v. Shouldice, 706 F.2d 742, 746-47 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 487 , 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983); Goodman v. Heublein, Inc., 682 F.2d 44, 45-47 (2d Cir.1982); Scola v. Boat Frances, R., Inc., 618 F.2d 147, 152-54 (1st Cir.1980). 10 This result may be easily explained.

See, e.g., Stern v. Shouldice, 706 F.2d 742 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 487 , 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983) 5 Plaintiff relies on Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District, 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir.1976), for the proposition that students in a public school have a constitutionally protected right "to receive information which they and their teachers desire them to have." Id., at 583 .

See, e.g., Stern v. Shouldice, 706 F.2d 742 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 487 , 78 L.Ed.2d 683 (1983). .

See generally United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983). 2.

See Salorio v. Glaser, 93 N.J. 447, 459 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983) (comparing journeys to work within, from, and to New Jersey, all modes).

It is well settled that "[t]he extraordinary remedy either of prohibition or mandamus lies only where there is a clear legal right, and in the case of prohibition only when a court . . . acts or [*2]threatens to act without jurisdiction in a matter of over which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding over which it has jurisdiction" ( Matter of State of New York v King , 36 NY2d 59, 62 [1975]; see Matter of Morgenthau…

Finally, because we conclude that Election Law § 16-102 provided petitioner with an adequate remedy in this case, and because we agree with respondents that the validity of their party rules would be decided more appropriately in the context of a challenge to a certificate of nomination filed by respondents pursuant to their rules, we decline to grant any further relief (cf. Matter of Peluso v Erie County Independence Party, 13 NY3d 139, 140 [2009]; see generally Matter of M…

Finally, because we conclude that Election Law § 16-102 provided petitioner with an adequate remedy in this case, and because we agree with respondents that the validity of their party rules would be decided more appropriately in the context of a challenge to a certificate of nomination filed by respondents pursuant to their rules, we decline to grant any further relief (cf. Matter of Peluso v Erie County Independence Party, 13 NY3d 139, 140 [2009]; see generally Matter of M…

Finally, because we conclude that Election Law § 16-102 provided petitioner with an adequate remedy in this case, and because we agree with respondents that the validity of their party rules would be decided more appropriately in the context of a challenge to a certificate of nomination filed by respondents pursuant to their rules, we decline to grant any further relief (cf. Matter of Peluso v Erie County Independence Party, 13 NY3d 139, 140 ; see generally Matter of Morgent…

Rather, “the extraordinary remedy of prohibition may be obtained only when a clear legal right of a petitioner is threatened by a body or officer acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity without jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding of which it has jurisdiction” (Matter of Soares v Herrick, 20 NY3d at 145 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbau…

Rather, “the extraordinary remedy of prohibition may be obtained only when a clear legal right of a petitioner is threatened by a body or officer acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity without jurisdiction in a matter over which it has no power over the subject matter or where it exceeds its authorized powers in a proceeding of which it has jurisdiction” (Matter of Soares v Herrick, 20 NY3d at 145 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbau…

Initially, we note that, because a writ of prohibition may be used for collateral review of an error of law “where the very jurisdiction and power of the court are in issue” (Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315 [1977]; see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, 149-150 [1983], cert denied 464 US 993 [1983]) and “[a] valid and sufficient accusatory instrument is a nonwaivable jurisdictional prerequisite to a criminal prosecution” (People v Harper, 37 NY2d 96, 99…

See, e.g., Salorio v. Glaser, 93 N.J. 447, 464-65 , 461 A. 2d 1100 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed. 2d 682 (1983) (giving only prospective application to an opinion constitutionally invalidating a tax imposed on New York commuters who worked in New Jersey, in light of the State's past reliance on revenues from the tax and the need to maintain public fiscal stability).

Thereafter, the plaintiff voluntarily discontinued the federal action “without prejudice.” The instant action and the action brought by Toys “R” Us-NY, LLC, against the plaintiff were not “between the same parties for the same cause of action” (CPLR 3211 [a] [4]; see Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143, 149 [1983], cert denied 464 US 993 [1983]; Barringer v Zgoda, 91 AD2d 811 [1982]).

See, e.g., Salorio v. Glaser, 93 N.J. 447, 462-69 , 461 A.2d 1100 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983).

It has long been the rule that a declaratory judgment action is the appropriate vehicle for settling a justiciable controversy “where a constitutional question is involved or the legality or meaning of a statute is in question and no question of fact is involved” (Dun & Bradstreet v City of New York, 276 NY 198, 206 [1937] [emphasis added]; see Matter of Morgenthau v ErIbaum, 59 NY2d 143 [1983], cert denied 464 US 993 [1983]; New York County Lawyers’ Assn. v State of New Yor…

See, e.g., Salorio v. Glaser, 93 N.J. 447, 462-69 , 461 A. 2d 1100 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed. 2d 682 (1983); Borough of Neptune City v. Borough of Avon by the Sea, 61 N.J. 296, 310-11 , 294 A. 2d 47 (1972).

Ass’n v. Fishman, 283 N.J.Super. 253, 267-69 , 661 A.2d 842 (App.Div. 1995); see also Salorio v. Glaser, 93 N.J. 447, 462-69 , 461 A.2d 1100 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983).

This petition must be dismissed, since neither type of relief sought, prohibition or declaratory judgment, is appropriate here (see, Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59, 62 [prohibition unavailable to "review an error of law in a pending criminal action, however egregious and however unreviewable”]; Matter of Jacobs v Altman, 69 NY2d 733, 735 [same]; La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 579 , cert denied 424 US 968 [same]; see also, Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2…

"It is firmly established that the decision of whether to grant declaratory relief is discretionary in character” (Smyley v Tejada, 171 AD2d 660, 661 ; see also, Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143 , cert denied 464 US 993 ).

See County of Rockland v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 709 F.2d 766 , 776 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 485 , 78 L.Ed.2d 681 (1983).

Further, the extraordinary remedy of prohibition is never available where there exists "an adequate remedy, by way of appeal or otherwise” (Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718, 720 ; see, Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143 , cert denied 464 US 993 ).

Nor is it available if there exists "an adequate remedy, by way of appeal or otherwise” (Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718, 720 ; see, Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143 , cert denied 464 US 993 ).

See, e.g., Salorio v. Glaser, 93 N.J. 447, 462-69 , 461 A. 2d 1100 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed. 2d 682 (1983); Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 520-21 , 303 A. 2d 273 , cert. denied sub. nom., Dickey v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 976 , 94 S.Ct. 292 , 38 L.Ed. 2d 219 (1973); Borough of Neptune City v. Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea, 61 N.J. 296, 310-11 , 294 A. 2d 47 (1972).

See United States v. Russo, 708 F.2d 209, 214 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 487 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983); Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 740 (9th Cir.1963); United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1081 (2d Cir.1969).

See United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 982 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983).

The direction to recalculate reimbursement rates for 1988 through 1991 was in accord with the reinstated judgment and within the court’s discretion to award ancillary relief to the prevailing party to give meaning to its judgment (see, CPLR 3001, 3017 [b]; see generally, Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143 , cert denied 464 US 993 ) and to fashion its judgment to fit the needs of the occasion (see, CPLR 3001, 3017 [b]; First Natl.

Further, the "extraordinary remedy of prohibition is never available merely to correct or prevent trial errors of substantive law or procedure, however grievous” (La Rocca v Lane, 37 NY2d 575, 579 , cert denied 424 US 968 ), nor is it available if there exists "an adequate remedy, by way of appeal or otherwise” (Matter of Molea v Marasco, 64 NY2d 718, 720 ; see, Matter of Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d 143 , cert denied 464 US 993 ).

However, while 'mere presence at the scene of the crime or mere association with conspirators will not themselves support a conspiracy conviction . . . presence or a single act will suffice if the circumstances permit the inference that the presence or act was intended to advance the ends of the conspiracy.' United States v. Mancillas , 580 F.2d 1301 , 1308 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied , 439 U.S. 958 , 99 S.Ct. 361 , 58 L.Ed.2d 351 ; see also United States v. Dalzotto , 603…

Compare Salorio v. Glaser, 93 N.J. 447, 465 , 461 A.2d 1100, 1109-10 , cert, denied, 464 U.S. 993 (1983) (state’s reliance on income from Emergency Transportation Tax — millions of dollars had already been collected and spent, so that “public fiscal stability” was at issue — was a factor in deciding that tax was unconstitutional prospectively only).

See Salorio v. Glaser, 93 N.J. 447, 465-467 (1983), cert. den. 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed. 2d 682 (1983).

See also United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983); Project, White-Collar Crime: Survey of Law-1983 Update, 21 Am.Crim.L.Rev. 179, 216 (1983); 2 W.

See also Salorio v. Glaser, 93 N.J. 447, 467-468 , 461 A.2d 1100, 1111 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983); Hellerstein v. Assessor of Town of *596 Islip, 37 N.Y.2d 1, 14 , 332 N.E.2d 279, 287 , 371 N.Y.S.2d 388, 399 (1975), modified, 39 N.Y.2d 920 , 352 N.E.2d 593 , 386 N.Y.S.2d 406 (1976); Soo Line R.

See Salorio v. Glaser, 93 N.J. 447 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983) (holding unconstitutional the imposition of the Emergency Transfer Tax on New York residents who commuted to work in New Jersey, but restricting decision to prospective application).

See United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 989 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983); United States v. Eucker, 532 F.2d 249, 254 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 822 , 97 S.Ct. 73 , 50 L.Ed.2d 84 (1976).

“In a proceeding involving unliquidated damages, such as the present case, the decision whether to award prejudgment interest is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Feather v. U.M.W. of America, 711 F.2d 530, 540 (3d Cir.1983) (citing Lodges 743 and 1746, etc. v. United Aircraft Corp., 534 F.2d 422, 445-47 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 825 , 97 S.Ct. 79 , 50 L.Ed.2d 87 (1976)); accord Stern v. Shouldice, 706 F.2d 742, 747 (6th Cir.), cert. denie…

See also United States v. Xheka, 704 F.2d 974, 978-79 (7th Cir. 1983) (gasoline-soaked paper towels and fumes are an "explosive” under § 844(j) where actual explosion occurred), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 993 , 104 S.Ct. 486 , 78 L.Ed.2d 682 (1983).