Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

133 (1987)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Number: 133 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 16, 1987
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 833 F.2d 430 NEW YORK STATE MOTOR TRUCK ASSOCIATION, INC., Roadway Express Inc., Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware, Yellow Freight System, Inc., United Parcel Service of America, Inc., ABF Freight System Inc., Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., A-P-A Transport Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF NEW YORK, Edward I. Koch, in his capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, Ross Sandler, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Transportation Department of the City of New York, and Benj
More

833 F.2d 430

NEW YORK STATE MOTOR TRUCK ASSOCIATION, INC., Roadway
Express Inc., Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware,
Yellow Freight System, Inc., United Parcel Service of
America, Inc., ABF Freight System Inc., Carolina Freight
Carriers Corp., A-P-A Transport Corp., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK, Edward I. Koch, in his capacity as
Mayor of the City of New York, Ross Sandler, in his capacity
as Commissioner of the Transportation Department of the City
of New York, and Benjamin Ward, in his capacity as
Commissioner of the Police Department of the City of New
York, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 133, Docket 87-7419.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 4, 1987.
Decided Nov. 16, 1987.

Fred Kolikoff, New York City (Peter L. Zimroth, Corp. Counsel of the City of New York, Larry A. Sonnenshein, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.

Mark L. Davidson, Washington, D.C. (John C. Kirtland, Thomas M. Keeling, Frederick J. Killion, Bishop, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before KAUFMAN, PIERCE, and MINER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Charles Haight, Judge, granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from implementing and enforcing Article 19 of New York City's Traffic Rules and Regulations, as revised, and from an order denying defendants' subsequent motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) to limit the scope of the injunction. The order denying the Rule 59(e) motion is affirmed; the order granting a preliminary injunction is affirmed substantially for the reasons given by Judge Haight in his lengthy opinion, reported at 654 F. Supp. 1521 (S.D.N.Y.1987).

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer