Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Lawrence C. Longway, Individually and As Supervisor for Thetown of Pamelia; John C. Kiechle, Individually and Assupervisor of the Town of Philadelphia; Town Ofphiladelphia; James D. St. Croix, Individually and Assupervisor of the 10th Ward of the City of Watertown; Brucedempster, Individually and As Supervisor of the 11th Ward Ofthe City of Watertown; Ralph A. Green, Individually and Assupervisor of the Town of Watertown; Fairman S. Sutton,individually and As Supervisor of the Town of Alexandria;james E. Golden, Individually and As Supervisor of the Townof Lyme; Neil F. Parks, Individually and As Supervisor Ofthe Town of Rutland, and Daniel T. Jenkins, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Jefferson County Board of Supervisors and Jefferson County,new York, Defendants-appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. - 995 F.2d 12
June 3, 1993
Present: MESKILL, Chief Judge, WALKER, Circuit Judge, MOTLEY,* District Judge.
This appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, McAvoy, J., came on to be heard on the transcript of record from said district court and was argued by counsel.
To the extent that Judge McAvoy ruled that the questions presented to us are ripe for review, we AFFIRM. While Jefferson County has not yet adopted any particular apportionment plan, it is quite clear that whatever plan is ultimately adopted will be based on the broad population base that is the subject of this appeal. We believe, therefore, that there is an active case or controversy and that the questions presented to us are fit for judicial determination.
In all other respects we believe that resolution of the issues presented depends on the resolution of an unsettled question of New York state law. Therefore, on consideration of the briefs, appendix, record and the oral argument in this appeal, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court transmit to the Clerk of the New York Court of Appeals a Certificate in the form attached, together with a complete set of the briefs, appendix, and record filed with this Court by the parties.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Docket No. 93-7005