Opinion

Chapland v. New York City Board of Elections

  • 97 F.3d 38
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Filed
Oct 9, 1996
Status
Published
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

97 F.3d 38

Antoinette CHAPLAND, Isabel Boyle, individually and as

representatives of the class of similarly situated

individuals, namely those registered voters who were denied

their right to vote in the primary election on September 10,

1996 due to the failure of the Board of Elections to

properly provide and make accessible the balloting machines

and registration books during the course of the primary day

the 51st assembly District in the County of Kings; and John

K. O'Hara, candidate for public office of Member of the New

York State Assembly in the 51st Assembly District in the

County of Kings, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

v.

NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS and Tanya Ruiz, candidates

for the public office of Member of the New York

State Assembly in the 51st Assembly

District in the County of

Kings, Defendants-Appellees,

Felix W. Ortiz, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 96-9286L, 96-9288XAP.

United States Court of Appeals,

Second Circuit.

Oct. 9, 1996.

John W. Carroll, New York City, for Felix Ortiz.

Robert S. Myers, New York City, for Appellees.

Present: OAKES, ALTIMARI, MAHONEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of record from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was taken on submission.

2

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order of the district court be and it hereby is REVERSED.

3

On October 1, 1996, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered an order that granted a preliminary injunction directing the continuation of the September 10, 1996 Democratic primary election for certain offices in Kings County in a number of specified election districts. The order of the district court is reversed. No continuation of the primary election shall be held on October 10, 1996. The mandate shall issue forthwith. An opinion in the related case Gold v. Feinberg, Nos. 96-9274, 96-9284, articulating the rationale for this decision will follow.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.