Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.85s
City of Newark v. Household Finance Corp.
18 N.J. Misc. 295 · New Jersey Tax Court · May 7, 1940
In Household Finance Corp. v. State Board of Tax Appeals (Supreme Court, 1937), 119 N. J. L. 230; 196 Atl. … See Household Finance Corp. v. City of Newark (State Board), June 13th, 1939.
Cited 0 timesPublishedJanney v. J. W. Jones Lumber Company, Inc.
North Carolina Industrial Commission · Jan 31, 2000
Hollar v. Furniture Company , 48 N.C. App. 489 , 269 S.E.2d 667 (1980). It is not necessary that the "risk attributable to the employment" be a risk greater than that experienced by the general public. Allred v. … Pickrell v. Motor Convoy, Inc ., 322 N.C. 363 , 368 S.E.2d 582 (1988).
Cited 0 timesPublishedNorth Carolina Industrial Commission · Mar 22, 2004
The North Carolina Industrial Commission has jurisdiction to hear tort claims against the State Board of Education, the Board of Transportation, and all other departments, institutions and agencies of the State and does not … Register v. Administrative Office of the Courts , 70 N.C. App. 763 , 321 S.E.2d 24 (1984), Taylor v. Stonewall Jackson Manual Training Indus. School , 5 N.C.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBurleson v. Germantown Partners Supercuts
2017 TN WC App. 47 · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · Aug 15, 2017
Foreman v. Automatic Sys., Inc., 272 S.W.3d 560, 571 (Tenn. 2008). … Tryon v. Saturn Corp., 254 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tenn. 2008). . . . See Clark v. Willamette Indus., Inc., No. E1999-02693-WC-R3- CV, 2001 Tenn. LEXIS 138, at *6 (Tenn. Workers’ Comp.
Cited 0 timesPublishedGamel v. City Nat. Bank of Colorado Tex.
258 S.W. 1043 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Feb 27, 1924
Phelps v. Brackett, 24 Tex. 236 ; Caldwell v. Brown, 43 Tex. 216 ; Focke v. Sterling, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 8 , 44 S. W. 611 ; Poe v. Hall (Tex. Civ. App.) 241 S. W. 708 . … So, in Vosburgh v. Brown, 66 Barb. (N.
Cited 20 timesPublishedLovette, Lawrence v. Titan Transfer, Inc.
2016 TN WC 93 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Apr 28, 2016
.: 2016-08-0025 Employee, v. … Buchanan v. Car/ex Glass Co., No. 2015-01-0012, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 39, at *6 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Sept. 29, 2015).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 28, 1973
This opinion was challenged by a member of the Legislature seeking payment on a teaching contract in the case of State v. Board of Education of the Dependent School District No. D-38, Okl., 389 P.2d 356 . … (Emphasis added) See also Baskin v. State ex rel Short, Attorney General, 107 Okl. 272 , 232 P. 388 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedIn re the Probate of the Will of Croker
201 Misc. 264 · New York Surrogate's Court · May 4, 1951
(Brown v. Mack, 185 Misc. 368 ; see, also, Matter of Gallagher, 10 Pa. Dist. Ct. 733; Harris v. *266 Nashville Trust Co., 128 Tenn. 573 ; Note, 49 L. R. A. [N. S.] 897; Note, 87 A. L. … It is obvious that the court should not have the power to excise the offensive language bodily from the original docu *273 ment; such action might destroy evidence of testamentary capacity and intent, as noted in Brown v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedFernandez v. State of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 24302 · New York Court of Claims · Nov 25, 2024
And, in any event, the claimant maintains that the relevant statute of limitations to charge Melino for his alleged drug dealing crimes has expired long ago, citing for support, among others: Brown v Walker ( 161 US 591, … Brown v Walker , 161 US at 598 ), no matter how much other detriment, such as loss of reputation, would attach to his admissions ( see Lloyd v Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany , 23 AD3d 783 [3d Dept 2005]; Child
Cited 0 timesPublished204 Misc. 937 · New York Surrogate's Court · Dec 14, 1953
It has been held that between relatives board and services do not raise an implied promise to pay. (Terry v. Bale, 1 Dem. 452 .) It has further been held so as between members of the same family. … So, in cases where there is such a relationship, a valid express contract is the -pp.lv dependable implementation of a recovery. *941 As stated by Lehman, J., in Robinson v. Munn ( 238 N.
Cited 8 timesPublishedSteele v. N.C. Dept. of Correction
North Carolina Industrial Commission · Jul 12, 2007
. § 143-291 (a) confers the Industrial Commission with jurisdiction to hear tort claims against the State Board of Education, the Board of Transportation and all other departments, institutions and agencies of the State. … Collins v. North Carolina Parole Commission , 344 N.C. 179 , 473 S.E.2d 1 (1996); Jenkins v. Department of Motor Vehicles , 244 N.C. 560 , 94 S.E.2d 577 (1956); Braswell v. University , 5 N.C.
Cited 0 timesPublished20 Misc. 2d 608 · New York Surrogate's Court · Oct 21, 1959
(Soper v. Brown, 136 N. Y. 244 ; Petry v. Petry, 186 App. Div. 738 , affd. 227 N. Y. 621 .) … Equally well defined in the decisions has been the rule that the common-law doctrine must yield to a very faint glimpse of a definite intention on the part of the testatrix. (2 Jarman, Wills [1st Am. ed., 1845], 111; Ferrer v.
Cited 2 timesPublished175 Misc. 2d 186 · Civil Court of the City of New York · Dec 16, 1997
This section authorizes a health provider to receive fees, as per the schedules prepared and established by the Workers’ Compensation Board. (See, Goldberg v Corcoran, 153 AD2d 113 .) … Neither the statute nor Goldberg v Corcoran (supra), relied upon by defendants, bars a provider from recovering any fee if he or she billed in excess of the fee permitted by statute.
Cited 1 timesPublished2025 TN WC 47 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Jul 18, 2025
The Appeals Board discussed and applied this doctrine and the two above cases in Smiley v. Four Seasons Coach Leasing, Inc., 2016 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 28, at *16-18 (July 15, 2016). … The Appeals Board has not offered guidance on the definition of “unreasonable” in this context since then. McCool v. Prof. Care Servs., LLC, 2025 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 22, at *5 (July 10, 2025).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 11, 2000
Garrison v. Bechtel Corp., 889 P.2d 273 , 281 (Okla. 1995). Only when an offer is accepted does it become a binding promise and result in a contract. … First American Bank and Trust Co. of Purcell v. Oklahoma Indus. Fin. Auth., 951 P.2d 625 , 631-32 (Okla. 1997) (citing Fuller v. Odom, 741 P.2d 449 , 452-53 (Okla. 1987)).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 1, 1991
County Excise Board v. Gulf Pipe Line Co., 9 P.2d 460 , 463 (Okla. 1932). … See also Board of Commissioners of LeFlore County v. Central Nat.
Cited 0 timesPublishedGray, Mark v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
2024 TN WC App. 11 · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · Mar 12, 2024
See Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393, 399 (Tenn. 2013). … Thus, 2 In Batey v. Deliver This, Inc., 568 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tenn. 2019), the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed and adopted “in its entirety” our opinion in Batey v. Deliver This, Inc., No. 2016-05-0666, 2018 TN Wrk.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 30, 1986
Central Liquor v. Okla. Alcoholic Bev. Control Bd ., 640 P.2d 1351 , 1354 (Okla. 1982). The interest earned upon each account is credited to the general fund of the county. … No. 1 v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs , 674 P.2d 547 (Okla. 1983), wherein the Supreme Court recognized "[t]he rule of law that interest is an accretion or increment to the principal fund earning it absent legislation [.]"
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 8, 1975
Board of Education v. American Nat. Co., 275 P. 285 (1928); School District No. 9 of Tulsa County v. Board of Commissioners of Tulsa, 280 P. 807 (1929).
Cited 0 timesPublished458 A.2d 707 · Delaware Family Court · May 21, 1982
On or about April 1,1982, the Industrial Accident Board (hereinafter called “Board”) commuted the loss of use payments to 19 Del.C. § 2358 in the amount of approximately $28,000. … Compensation for a husband’s personal injuries, which were received after the filing for the divorce were found to belong to him as personal property in Jurek v. Jurek, Ariz.Supr., 124 Ariz. 596 , 606 P.2d 812 (1980).
Cited 18 timesPublished
Ask Donna