Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersSS

10,000+ results

2.06s

  • Nyack Rural Cemetery, Inc. v. State

    46 Misc. 2d 1025 · New York Court of Claims · Jul 16, 1965

    (Nyack Rural Cemetery v. State of New York, 32 Misc 2d 828, 829 .) … A notice that such a petition would be presented by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Bock!

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • In re the Estate of Chadbourne

    92 Misc. 2d 648 · New York Surrogate's Court · Dec 27, 1977

    article "third (b)” testatrix created a trust of one half her residuary estate: "(b) To receive and collect the rents, profits and income from one such trust fund and to pay over the net income therefrom to my daughter, emily brown … Trust Co. v. Hogencamp, 191 N. Y. 281 ; Williams v. Jones, 166 N. Y. 522, 536 ; Norris v. Beyea, 13 N. Y. 273, 287 ; 2 Jarman on Wills [6th English ed.], p. 1373).

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Opinion No.

    Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 28, 1976

    OPINION — AG — UNDER ARTICLE V , SECTION 55 , OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION, AN EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION SYSTEM PROVIDING FOR CASH BONUSES TO EMPLOYEES OF A STATE AGENCY CANNOT BE FUNDED FROM THAT AGENCY'S LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR … RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF BOTH ELECTED AND APPOINTED STATE OFFICERS; ANY APPLICABLE MAXIMUM LIMIT ON COMPENSATION REFERRED TO IN 74 O.S. 1975 Supp., 285 [ 74-285 ], OR ANY COMPENSATION PLAN ADOPTED BY THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • In re the Estate of McEvoy

    139 Misc. 349 · New York Surrogate's Court · Feb 25, 1931

    (Van Winkle v. Fowler, 52 Hun, 355 ; Dorland v. Dorland, 2 Barb. 63 ; Morton v. Morton, 8 Barb. 18 .) ” To like effect see Matter of Lepper ( 232 N. Y. 605 ); Boehmcke v. McKeon ( 119 App. Div. 30, 31 ); Messenger v. … Dig. 71 , 72; reported by memorandum only, 31 Hun, 45 ); Matter of Brown ( 133 Misc. 519, 525 ); Matter of Chase (129 id. 1, 2).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Ap Atl., Inc. v. Crescent Univ. City Venture, LLC

    2017 NCBC 48 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 6, 2017

    AP Atl., Inc. v. Crescent Univ. City Venture, LLC, 2017 NCBC 48. … App. 253, 257–58, 332 S.E.2d 499, 502 (1985) (holding that records, minutes, and materials of the Board of Trustees were not privileged).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Morway v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp.

    2011 Ohio 7027 · Ohio Court of Claims · Dec 19, 2011

    Browning v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol, 151 Ohio App.3d 798, 2003- Ohio-1108, ¶67, citing Harmon v. GZK, Inc., Montgomery App. No. 18672, 2002-Ohio- 545. … Brown John T. Heino Randall W. Knutti Richard J.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Opinion No. (2005)

    Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jan 14, 2005

    duties and responsibilities. 4 A review committee was created to "conduct periodic reviews of trauma patient care and to review continuous quality improvement activities of the regional trauma advisory boards." … VII , § 7(a); Samuels v. Granite Sav. Bank Trust Co., 1 P.2d 145 , 147 (Okla. 1931). Municipal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear these matters.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Opinion No. (1974) Ag

    Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · Apr 24, 1974

    The Oklahoma Supreme Court in Harness v. … McKee Brown Lumber Company, 89 P. 1020 (1907) cited with approval the definition of "valuable consideration" from Professor Page's treatise on Contracts (Vol. 1, 274): "A valuable consideration is some legal right acquired

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • United States National Bank v. Department of Revenue

    16 Or. Tax 193 · Oregon Tax Court · Jan 25, 2000

    ‘It is left to. the department to determine whether those facts indicate that it is likely an error exists on the roll.’ ” McGill v. Dept. of Rev., 14 OTR 40,43 (1996), quoting Ohio State Life Ins. Co. v. … Pratum Co-Op Whse. v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR130 (1975) and Rogue River Pack. v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Timon v. Onslow County

    North Carolina Industrial Commission · Jan 13, 2003

    Pitillo v. N.C. Department of Health Natural Resources , ___ N.C. App. ___, 566 S.E.2d 807 (2002); Smith v. Pinkerton's Sec. Invest. , 146 N.C. App. 278 , 552 S.E.2d 682 (2001). … Smith, supra ; see Dillingham v. Yeargin Construction Co. , 320 N.C. 499 , 358 S.E.2d 380 (1987). Plaintiff's frustration with her job does not constitute an accidental event. Cody v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Davis v. Coastal Moving Co.

    North Carolina Industrial Commission · Nov 19, 2001

    . § 97-2 (2); Brown v. Truck Lines , 227 N.C. 299 , 42 S.E.2d 71 (1947). 2. … N.C.G.S. § 97-2 (2); Hoffman v. Truck Lines, Inc ., 306 N.C. 502 , 293 S.E.2d 807 (1982); Brown v. Truck Lines , 227 N.C. 299 , 42 S.E.2d 71 (1947); Smith v. Central Transport , 51 N.C.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • In re the Will of Blumenthal

    182 Misc. 137 · New York Surrogate's Court · Sep 22, 1943

    Y. 732 ), and by my dictum in Matter of Brown (N. Y. L. … An analysis of the decision, Irving Trust Co. v. Hitt (Sup. Ct., Westchester Co., N. Y. L.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Bloor v. State

    93 Misc. 2d 899 · New York Court of Claims · Mar 30, 1978

    Assn. v New York State Thruway Auth., 5 NY2d 420 , wherein it was held that the State Thruway Authority was not a "board” or "department” within the meaning of the State Finance Law, § 135). … It is also noteworthy that the Legislature, pursuant to section 3 of article V of the Constitution "may from time to time assign by law new powers and functions to departments, officers, boards, commissions or executive offices

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Lewis v. Goodyear Tire Rubber

    North Carolina Industrial Commission · Jan 8, 2009

    Mark Utell who is board-certified in internal medicine and pulmonary medicine. Dr. … Stat. § 97-57 (13), as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rutledge v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Opinion No. (1979)

    Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 18, 1979

    In the case of Rountree v. … See also Consolidated School District No. 6 v. Panther Oil Grease Mfg.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • In re the Construction of the Will of McVoy

    1 Misc. 2d 251 · New York Surrogate's Court · Jul 25, 1955

    Over a period of years testator was a member of the board of trustees of the corporation, chairman of this board, a member of the corporation’s executive committee and president of the corporation. … Div. 1029 ; Matter of Dieudonne, 186 Misc. 642 ), and as mandatory (Colton v. Colton, 127 U. S. 300 ; Riker v. Leo, 115 N. Y. 93, 98 ; Matter of Bluestein, 277 App. Div. 385 , affd. 302 N.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • George E. Failing Co. v. St. Johns River Water Management District

    29 Fla. Supp. 2d 135 · State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings · Aug 28, 1987

    Liberty County, et al. v. Baxter’s Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So.2d 505, 507 (Fla. 1982). 5. … Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of General Services, 493 So.2d 50, 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • China City Corp. v. State

    51 Misc. 2d 429 · New York Court of Claims · Jun 15, 1966

    This is not a case where a fee or tax paid voluntarily may not be recovered (Adrico Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 250 N. Y. 29 ; Peyser v. Mayor of City of New York, 70 N. Y. 497 ). Quite the contrary. … (Matter of Drake v. *433 Comptroller of City of New York, 278 App. Div. 317, 322 .) To the same effect, see Lanvin Parfums v. Le Dams, Ltd. (12 A D 2d 104).

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • The Senior Citizens Center of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of St. Volodimir V.Township of Franklin

    New Jersey Tax Court · Jan 3, 2018

    restrictions in the board’s resolution. … Brown v. Borough of Glen Rock, 19 N.J. Tax 366, 376 (App. Div.)(citing Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 81 (11th ed. 2006)), certif. denied, 168 N.J. 291 (2001).

    Cited 0 timesUnpublished
  • Coleman v. Coleman

    2015 NCBC 110 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 10, 2015

    In order to defeat this presumption and survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiff must allege in other than conclusory terms that the board was “inattentive or uninformed, acted in bad faith, or that the board’s decision was … This conclusory statement, standing alone, is insufficient to demonstrate that the board’s actions were outside the realm of the business judgment rule. See, e.g., Technik v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.