Honig v. BD. OF SUPERVISORS OF RENSSELAER COUNTY
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Hoffmann v. New York State Ind. Redistricting Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- the Matter of Anthony S. Hoffmann v. New York State Independent Redistricting Commission (N.Y. 2023)
- Matter of Nichols v. Hochul (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Matter of Nichols v. Hochul (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Nedda R. Honig, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Residents of the County of Rensselaer, Similarly Situated, Respondent,
v.
Board of Supervisors of Rensselaer County et al., Respondents, and Joseph G. Manupella, Intervenor-Appellant.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Marvin I. Honig for plaintiff-respondent.
Thomas V. Kenney, Philip J. Landry, Jr., and Edward M. Murray for intervenor-appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Robert W. Imrie and William A. Carero of counsel), for State of New York, respondent.
James T. Ronan, County Attorney, for Board of Supervisors of Rensselaer County, respondent.
Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, SCILEPPI, BERGAN, BREITEL and JASEN. Taking no part: Judge KEATING.
Order affirmed, without costs, on the opinion at the Appellate Division. We but repeat that court's admonition that the County Board of Supervisors to be chosen at the coming (1969) election proceed as promptly as circumstances permit to promulgate a plan of reapportionment (for use in future elections) meeting constitutional standards (Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U. S. 542, 547).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.