596 F. Supp. 2d 546 - Molinari v. Bloomberg’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Buckley v. Valeo · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Bishop v. Wood
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The requirement of a referendum for legislation that “curtails any power of an elective officer” must be read as applying only to legislation that impairs a power conferred on the officer as part of the framework of local government. For example, a local law limiting the power of New York City’s Mayor to appoint commissioners, or to prepare a budget, or to create or abolish positions within his executive office would require a referendum (see NY. City Charter §§ 6, 8[f]; § 225[a]). But, as a general rule, a law that merely regulates the operations of city government, in collective bargaining or in some other area, is not a curtailment of an officer’s power. So here, the Mayor’s power in the New York City governmental structure is unimpaired. A local law prescribing a procedural rule for collective bargaining is not an encroachment on the May- or’s role in City government. The limitation on his freedom to act is merely a consequence of legislative policymaking. By contrast, the cases the Mayor relies on all involved limitations on an elected officer’s structural authority.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Except as otherwise provided by or under authority of a state statute, a local law shall be subject to mandatory referendum if it: b. In the case of a city, town or village, changes the membership or composition of the legislative body or increases or decreases the number of votes which any member is entitled to cast. e. Abolishes an elective office, or changes the method of nominating, electing or removing an elective officer, or changes the term of an elective office, or reduces the salary of an elective officer during his term of office, f. Abolishes, transfers or curtails any power of an elective officer ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is unlikely that the legislature radically revised its understanding of the term “membership” between 1961 and 1963. Hence, the 1963 legislature, which passed the Municipal Home Rule Law, conceived of the term “membership” as referring to structural characteristics, including the number of persons in the legislative body.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.