Wit v. Berman
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
306 F.3d 1256 (2002)
- Written by Galina Abdel Aziz , JD
Facts
Harold M. Wit and Donald C. Ebel (plaintiffs) each owned homes in New York City (city) for over 40 years. Wit and Ebel paid income and property taxes, owned real property, were listed in the phone directory, and spent significant amounts of time in the city. Both Wit and Ebel were registered to vote in the city. However, Wit and Ebel also lived and registered to vote in East Hampton and South Hampton. The city barred Wit and Ebel from voting in the city’s elections because they were also registered to vote in the Hamptons. Wit and Ebel sued the state, alleging that Section 17-104 of the Election Law denied their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wit and Ebel sought declaratory and injunctive relief allowing them to register to vote in both the city and the Hamptons. The federal district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. Wit and Ebel appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Winter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.