TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Henry Hewes v. Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York New York City Board of Elections

Henry HEWES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert ABRAMS, Attorney General of the State of New York, Intervenor-Appellee, New York City Board of Elections, Defendant-Appellee

Hewes v. Abrams, 884 F.2d 74 (2d Cir. 1989)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 1, 1989
Docket
Nos. 1568, 89-7589
Judges
Feinberg, Newman, Mishler
Citations
884 F.2d 741989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13523

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

Pro 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).

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1995: 11996: 11999: 12012: 12020: 12026: 119952026peak 1995 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rockefeller v. Powers74 F.3d 1367 (2d Cir. 1995)
  2. Perry v. Judd840 F. Supp. 2d 945 (E.D. Va. 2012)
  3. Rockefeller v. Powers909 F. Supp. 863 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)
  4. Prestia v. O'Connor178 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1999)
  5. SAM Party of New York v. CuomoNo. 1:20-cv-00323 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2020)
  6. Eric Hafner v. New York State Board of Elections, Henry Berger, Peter Kosinski, Emma Bagnuola, Anthony CasaleNo. 1:23-cv-09517 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2026)

Most recent

  1. Eric Hafner v. New York State Board of Elections, Henry Berger, Peter Kosinski, Emma Bagnuola, Anthony CasaleNo. 1:23-cv-09517 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2026)
  2. SAM Party of New York v. CuomoNo. 1:20-cv-00323 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2020)
  3. Perry v. Judd840 F. Supp. 2d 945 (E.D. Va. 2012)
  4. Prestia v. O'Connor178 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 1999)
  5. Rockefeller v. Powers74 F.3d 1367 (2d Cir. 1995)
  6. Rockefeller v. Powers909 F. Supp. 863 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hewes v. Abrams, 718 F. Supp. 163 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list