Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

884 F.2d 74

Docket No. 1568, 89-7589.

Hewes v. Abrams

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued Aug. 28, 1989.

Decided Sept. 1, 1989.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1989-09-01

3 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“affirm[ing] substantially for the reasons stated by”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Prestia v. O'Connor, Rockefeller v. Powers

Relies on Hewes v. Abrams

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1989-09-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2012

3 federal appellate ·

501989199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Henry Hewes, New York City, plaintiff-appellant, pro se.

¶2Dennis J. Saffran, New York City, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State of N.Y. (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of N.Y., of counsel), for intervenor-appellee.

¶3Ellen B. Fishman, New York City, Asst. Corp. Counsel of the City of New York (Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel of the *75City of New York, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

¶4Before FEINBERG and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges, MISHLER, District Judge.*

¶6PER CURIAM:

¶7Pro se plaintiff-appellant Henry Hewes appeals from an order, entered on May 5, 1989, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles S. Haight, Jr., J., denying Hewes's motion for a preliminary injunction, and granting the cross-motion to dismiss of in-tervenor-appellee Robert Abrams. Appellant, who is the Right to Life Party candidate for Mayor of New York City and a would-be candidate in the Republican primary for that office, challenges the constitutionality of section 6-136(2) of the New York Election Law. This section requires a prospective candidate in a primary to present a petition signed either by five percent of the registered voters of that candidate’s party, or 10,000 such voters, whichever is less, in order to be placed on the ballot. Appellant argues that section 6-136(2) allows a candidate from a party with a large enrollment — such as the Democratic Party — to qualify for the ballot with a number of signatures representing a substantially lower percentage of the total enrollment of that candidate’s party than does a candidate from a party with a small enrollment. Appellant claims that section 6-136(2) thus violates the Equal Protection Clause by placing an undue burden on prospective candidates from minority parties. We affirm substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Haight in his thorough opinion, reported at 718 F.Supp. 163 (S.D. N.Y.1989).

/884/f2d/74 · .json · Public domain