Supreme Court of the United States, 1962

Honeywood v. Rockefeller

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 8, 1962 · Goldberg

371 U.S. 1; 83 S. Ct. 30; 9 L. Ed. 2d 49; 1962 U.S. LEXIS 514 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Moses M. Falk for appellants., Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General of New York,, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General,, Irving Galt, Assistant Solicitor General, and Sheldon, Raab, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Dennis v. Torres (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 2022)
Robert Theodore Weaver v. United States (8th Cir. 1969)
Davis v. City of National City (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2020)
DesRoches v. USPS (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2009)
Schroeder v. Sager Elec. Supply (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1996)
Lackvic, MD v. Littleton Hosp. (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1996)
RTC v. Glachman (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1996)
Brooker v. Powell (District Court, D. New Hampshire 1995)
Nova v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Nova v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
State v. Taylor (Mo. 1967)
United States v. Sanders (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 1967)
United States v. Charles S. Pheribo (2d Cir. 1965)
Trent Boyes v. United States (5th Cir. 1965)
Honeywood v. Rockefeller (District Court, E.D. New York 1963)
In re Scheitlin (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri 1900)

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

Per Curiam.

Since we agree with the District Court, from our examination of the record, “that no good cause has been shown for the granting of a preliminary injunction in advance of a trial upon which the facts necessary for a determination of the merits of this action can be fully developed,” the motion to affirm is granted and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.