https://mauitime.com/culture/history/using-newly-declassified-documents-we-examine-the-legacy-of-elmer-cravalho-maui-countys-most-important-political-leader/

a few notes in 2018

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-mishkin

22People v. Mishkin, 17 A.D.2d 243 | 1962.

today i tracked down and read the lower court opinions in zwickler v koota. they are not online - i had to find a law library. i had read the two supreme court opinions in the case, but there is more detail in the lower court opinions. should have looked these up years ago. i would summarize, but i'm on a bus and it is hard to type.

a lawyer took me to lunch, and we discussed the nuts and bolts of doing a case om michigan's disclaimer statute. we decided that, while i'm not relicenced yet, i can bill this time as a paralegal, at a fraction of my usual rates.

I had forgotten that Zwickler v Koota went to the supreme court twice. the second time, it was dismissed as moot. I saw an article today about Koota's grandson, which is the lawyer now on trial for winning a $12-billion judgment again chevron in equador.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/business/steven-donziger-lawyer-who-beat-chevron-in-ecuador-faces-trial-of-his-own.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Zwickler v. Koota - 389 U.S. 241 (1967)

• Syllabus
• Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (1967)

Zwickler v. Koota

No. 29

Argued October 12, 1967

Decided December 5, 1967

389 U.S. 241

Syllabus

Reversal on state law grounds of appellant's conviction of violating a New York statute by distributing anonymous political handbills was affirmed by the State's highest court. Thereafter appellant, invoking federal jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, sought in the District Court declaratory relief and an injunction against future criminal prosecutions for violating the statute, claiming that, on its face, the statute contravened the First Amendment by its "overbreadth." A three-judge court applied the doctrine of abstention and dismissed the complaint, leaving the appellant to assert his constitutional challenge in the state courts either in the defense of any criminal prosecution for future violations of the statute or by way of a declaratory judgment action. The court held that abstention from ruling on the declaratory judgment issue was warranted because appellant had made no special showing of the need for an injunction against criminal prosecution.

Held:

1. The District Court erred in refusing to pass on appellant's claim for a declaratory judgment as there was no "special circumstance" warranting its application of the abstention doctrine to that claim. Pp. 389 U. S. 245-252.

(a) A federal court has the duty of giving due respect to a suitor's choice of a federal forum for the hearing and decision of his federal constitutional claims and escape from that duty is not permissible merely because state courts are equally responsible for the enforcement and protection of federal constitutional rights. P. 389 U. S. 248.

(b) A statutory construction by the state courts would not avoid or modify the constitutional question as the statute involved here is being challenged not for its lack of clarity, but for its "overbreadth." Pp. 389 U. S. 249-250.

(c) The principle that abstention cannot be used simply to give the state courts the first opportunity to vindicate a federal claim is particularly significant when, as here, the statute is being attacked as repugnant to the First Amendment, for the delay

Page 389 U. S. 242

from requiring recourse to the state courts might chill the very constitutional right which a plaintiff seeks to protect. P. 389 U. S. 252.

2. The District Court had the duty of adjudicating the request for a declaratory judgment regardless of its conclusion as to the propriety of the issuance of an injunction, for, asDombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, made clear, the questions of abstention and of injunctive relief are not the same. Pp. 389 U. S. 252-255.

261 F.Supp. 985, reversed and remanded.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only fo

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

DC

Florida

Guam

Peurto Rico

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

DC

Florida

Guam

Peurto Rico

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Ark Right to Life v Butler, http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11215408835135124670&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr,
didn't turn out the way I thought it did. The court denied summary judgment to plaintiffs, saying there was a question of material fact as to whether the statute was narowly tailored. (This was legal error, Talley and McIntyre are controlling.)

I wonder how the case eventually turned out - there doesn't seem to be any followup reported decision. The 8th circuit opinion did not address the disclaimer issue. I'll go double-check that.