Case law

Holley Ex Rel. McQuoid v. Lavine

464 F. Supp. 718 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 1, 1979

Mount Healthy Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280 , 97 S.Ct. 568 , 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). … Board of Managers, 415 F.2d 247, 250-51 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 948 , 90 S.Ct. 967 , 25 L.Ed.2d 128 (1970); Krisel v.

Eckert v. City of Buffalo

District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 6, 2025

See, e.g., id. at 73 (stating that she “believes Flynn conspired with Baskin and [former Mayor] Brown to withhold . . . evidence”); id. at 77 (stating that “Brown, Baskin, and [Justice Nugent] Panepinto[] conspired together … Blount v. Brown, 2010 WL 1945858, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 11, 2010) (quoting Ferrara v. Superintendent, N.Y. State Police Dep’t., 26 F.Supp.2d 410, 414 n.3 (N.D.N.Y. 1998)).

Trico Products Corporation v. McGowan

67 F. Supp. 311 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 3, 1946

The Board in that case, however, was dealing with the matter of res judicata. In McCutchin Drilling Co. v. … The same situation was presented in Trico Products Corp. v. Commissioner, 46 B.T.A. 346 , supra, and the Board said: “They apparently had no financial need for the dividends.

Oseekey v. SPAULDING FIBRE CO., INC.

655 F. Supp. 1119 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 10, 1987

Franchise Tax Board v. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14 , 103 S.Ct. 2841, 2848 , 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). There are, however, exceptions to the general rule precluding removal based upon a defense of preemption. … See Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 64 (2d Cir.1986).

Stevenson v. State and Local Police Agencies

42 F. Supp. 2d 229 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 23, 1999

Doe v. Pataki, 3 F.Supp.2d 456, 462 (1998). … See Doe v.

Lees v. Case-Hoyt Corp.

779 F. Supp. 717 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 23, 1991

Satz v. … They were Diane Nabel (“Nabel”), Betsy Small (“Small”) and Ariel Brown (“Brown”). A comparison of their salaries is set out below.

Gill v. Bausch & Lomb Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I

1 F. Supp. 3d 72 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 3, 2014

V. … V.

United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.

669 F. Supp. 56 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 18, 1987

United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., 540 F.Supp. 1067 (W.D.N.Y.1982). … The parties’ Stipulation on Requisite Remedial Technology [RRT Stipulation], approved by this court in 1986, United States v.

Mikulec v. Town of Cheektowaga

909 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, W.D. New York · Nov 13, 2012

Brown, No. 9:09-CV-0002 GTS/DEP, 2010 WL 6243352 , at *15 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2010) (injuries of a transitory nature are insufficiently serious). 3. … Board of County Com’rs Bryan County, Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997). Mere allegations are insufficient. Id. But mere allegations are all Mikulec can offer.

Lisa's Party City, Inc. v. Town of Henrietta

2 F. Supp. 2d 378 · District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 26, 1998

Although plaintiffs were granted permission to erect an all-red sign currently in place on its storefront, they nonetheless applied to the Town of Henrietta Zoning Board of Appeals (“Zoning Board”) for a variance to erect … A zoning board’s actions can be characterized as arbitrary or irrational “only when the government acts with ‘no legitimate reason for its decision.’” Crowley v.

In re Henry Harrison Co.

40 F. Supp. 733 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 16, 1941

Neither Hebbard nor Terry recalled the occasion of a meeting of the board of directors on that date. … V. B. Mining Co. v. First National Bank, 9 Cir., 95 F. 23 ; Karasik v. People’s Trust Co., D.C., 252 F. 324 .

Pollock v. Chertoff

361 F. Supp. 2d 126 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 28, 2005

Moreover, she states that defendants told her throughout her tenure that the BDC bulletin boards did not apply to contract employees of Barbosa, only INS employees. … Franco v.

Matthews v. Corning Inc.

737 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, W.D. New York · Sep 16, 2010

See Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic, 385 F.3d 210, 226 (2d Cir.2004); Brown v. Coach Stores, 163 F.3d 706, 710 (2d Cir.1998). … See Tomka v.

United States v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

4 F. Supp. 2d 172 · District Court, W.D. New York · Feb 17, 1998

Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), and as interpreted in Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v. U.S., 471 U.S. 48 , 105 S.Ct. 1721 , 85 L.Ed.2d 36 (1985). … See Cine 42nd Street Theater Corp. v.

Carmel v. CSH & C

32 F. Supp. 3d 434 · District Court, W.D. New York · Jul 23, 2014

County of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77 , 82 (2d Cir.1994) (a district court has the power to sua sponte dismiss a case for failure to state a claim); Robinson v. Brown, No. 11-CV-0758, 2012 WL 6799725 , at *19 (N.D.N.Y. … See Hughes v.

Muldrew v. W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp.

45 F. Supp. 174 · District Court, W.D. New York · Apr 8, 1942

Panama Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 388 , 44 S.Ct. 391 , 68 L.Ed. 748 ; Uravic v. F. Jarka Co., 282 U.S. 234, 240 , 51 S.Ct. 111 , 75 L.Ed. 312 ; Brown v. C. D. Mallory & Co., 3 Cir., 122 F.2d 98 . … Briggs v. Day, D.C., 21 F. 727, 730 .

Wray v. MONROE CO. BD. OF ELECTIONS

595 F. Supp. 1028 · District Court, W.D. New York · Oct 18, 1984

Dean Rowlison, and Lauren Heller, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, Marguerite L. Toole, and V. … The issue had been previously met and decided in Palla v.

Pomeroy v. Schlegel Corp.

780 F. Supp. 980 · District Court, W.D. New York · Dec 19, 1991

The plaintiffs in Hickman v. … Klein v. Bower, 421 F.2d 338, 343 (2d Cir.1970).

American Optical Co. v. Shuron Optical Co.

9 F.2d 932 · District Court, W.D. New York · Aug 5, 1925

, of the district of Rhode Island, in American Optical Co. v. … Thayer v. Hart (C. C.) 20 F. 693 .

Byars v. Jamestown Teachers Ass'n

195 F. Supp. 2d 401 · District Court, W.D. New York · Mar 17, 2002

The Jamestown City School Board appointed Dr. … Plaintiff provides no evidence to show that the actions of the Union, or Union members or officials, influenced the School Board and Superintendent to make their decision not to grant Dr. Byars tenure. See Anjelino v.