CARROLL v. BLINKEN

No. 698, Docket 91-7877.

957 F.2d 991 (1992)

Thomas W. CARROLL, Robert J. Carroll, Michael E. McChesney, Emanuel J. Panos, Edward J. Priola, Craig J. Rucker, Robert T. Schmidlin, Beth Turkovic Garfunkel, Christine McClellan, Christopher Sandor and Susanne Ziegler, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Donald M. BLINKEN, in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York, George L. Collins, Jr., D. Clinton Dominick, Judith Lasher Duken, Arnold B. Gardner, Gurstin D. Goldin, John L.S. Holloman, Jr., Nan Johnson, Everette Joseph, Judith Davidson Moyers, Edward V. Mele, Victor Marrero, Rosemary Salomone, Edgar A. Sandman, Thomas Vanarsdale, Darwin R. Wales, in their capacities as trustees of the State University of New York, Jerome Komisar, in his capacity as Acting Chancellor of the State University of New York, Vincent O'Leary, Clifford D. Clark, Alice Chandler, in his or her capacity as President and chief administrative officer of, respectively, the State University of New York at Albany, the State University of New York at Binghamton, and the State University of New York at New Paltz, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided February 13, 1992.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Martin S. Kaufman, New York City (Atlantic Legal Foundation, Inc., Douglas Foster, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Jocelyn Lee Jacobson, New York City (Alexander R. Sussman, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, of counsel), for defendant-appellee New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc.

Andrea Green, Asst. Atty. Gen. of State of N.Y., Albany, N.Y. (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., of counsel), for defendants-appellees State University of N.Y.

Before KAUFMAN, PRATT and MINER, Circuit Judges.


IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:

Thomas Jefferson recognized that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."1 At the same time, our nation's universities preserve a longstanding tradition of tolerating and even encouraging the propagation of all sorts of disbelieved opinions. We are asked today, in a case that involves competing concerns of the First...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases