Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Archival Collection of Judge Roger J. Miner: 1981-2012

Supreme Court Review of Judge Miner's Opinions

  • Consol. Edison Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 93 Misc. 2d 313, 402 N.Y.S.2d 551 (Sup. Ct. Albany County 1978) (PSC's order banning utility from using bill inserts to promote utility's position on "controversial matters of public policy" constituted an impermissibly vague restriction upon commercial speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments), rev'd, 63 A.D.2d 364, 407 N.Y.S.2d 735, aff'd, 47 N.Y.2d 94, 417 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1979), rev'd, 447 U.S. 530 (1980) (agreeing with Judge Miner's holding that bill inserts ban was unconstitutional).

  • Beer Inst. v. Healy, 849 F.2d 753 (2d Cir. 1988) (amended beer price affirmation provisions of Connecticut Liquor Control Act violated the commerce clause and did not represent a valid exercise of state's power under the Twenty-first Amendment), aff'd, 491 U.S. 324 (1989).

  • Willington Convalescent Home Inc. v. Conn. Dep't of Income Maint., 850 F.2d 50 (2d Cir. 1988) (Chapter 7 trustee's adversarial proceeding against the state of Connecticut did not fall within Bankruptcy Code's waiver of sovereign immunity and was therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment), aff'd sub nom.  Hoffman v. Conn. Dep't of Income Maint., 492 U.S. 96 (1989).

  • Simon & Schuster Inc. v. Fischetti, 916 F.2d 777 (2d Cir. 1990) (statute requiring earnings from exploitation of a crime to be escrowed to assure payment of civil judgments later recovered by victims was consistent with the First Amendment because it was narrowly tailored to that state's strong interest in preventing criminals from profiting from their crimes while victims were in need of compensation), rev'd sub nom. Simon & Schuster Inc. v. Members of the N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991).

  • Lamb's Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 959 F.2d 381 (2d Cir. 1992) (because schools were limited forums not open to religious uses by policy or practice, school district did not violate the First Amendment when it refused to allow church to use school facilities during nonschool hours to show religious film series), rev'd, 508 U.S. 384 (1993).

  • Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 970 F.2d 1138 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding, inter alia, that trustee of retirement trust did not have a fiduciary responsibility as to guaranteed benefits policy group annuity contract, but was a fiduciary as to nonfixed, nonguaranteed obligations subject to fluctuation), aff'd, 510 U.S. 86 (1993).

  • Quill v. Vacco, 80 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 1996) (New York statutes criminalizing assisted suicide violate the Equal Protection Clause because they are not rationally related to any legitimate state interest to the "extent they prohibit a physician from prescribing medications to be self-administered by a mentally competent, terminally-ill person in the final stages of his terminal illness" and therefore treat such persons differently from those who terminate life support at the request of terminally ill), rev'd, 521 U.S. 793 (1997).

  • Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 202 F.3d 502 (2d Cir. 2000) (school's policy limiting use of its facilities for after-school activities did not constitute unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and was not unreasonable where the after-school activities were "quintessentially religious" and fell "outside the bounds of pure 'moral and character development'"), rev'd and remanded, 533 U.S. 98 (2001).

  • Hallcok v. Bonner, 387 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding interlocutory order denying dismissal based on Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar appealable under the collateral order doctrine), vacated and remanded sub nom. Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006).