Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.48s
6 Misc. 2d 571 · New York Supreme Court · May 10, 1957
Respondent board cross-moves to dismiss the petition for legal insufficiency. … Lashins Inc. v. Griffin, 132 N. Y. S. 2d 896; Bayport Civic Assn. v. Koehler, 138 N. Y. S. 2d 524.)
Cited 4 timesPublished67 Misc. 2d 173 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 2, 1971
(See Schwartz v. Schuker, 298 F. Supp. 238 .) … (Education Law, § 1709, subd. 2; Matter of Scott v. Board of Educ., 61 Misc 2d 333 .)
Cited 3 timesPublished63 Misc. 2d 931 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1970
The respondents, who are members of the Board of Education, defend upon two grounds. … Relevant to the issue before this court are the decisions in Board of Educ. v. Rickard (32 A D 2d 135) and Matter of O’Connor v. Emerson ( 196 App. Div. 807, 810 ).
Cited 4 timesPublished131 Misc. 2d 514 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 26, 1986
The respondent, as chief financial officer of the State, is attempting to audit New York City Board of Education’s (Board) Attendance Improvement and Drop-Out Prevention Program (AIDPP) for the fiscal year 1984-1985. … (NY Const, art V, § 1; State Finance Law § 8 [2]; General Municipal Law art 3.)
Cited 2 timesPublished9 N.Y.S. 699 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1890
That decision had, as was supposed, the support in principle of the case of Bank v. Board, 106 N. Y. 488 , 13 N. E. … Price v. Price, 33 Hun, 432 ; Marquat v. Marquat, 12 N. Y. 336 ; Syracuse Sav. Bank v. Syracuse, etc., Railroad Co., 88 N. Y. 110 ; Smith v. Rathbun, Id. 660.
Cited 2 timesPublished193 Misc. 242 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 12, 1948
Theodore Brewer, obtained an order, dated that day, under section 330 of the Election Law, directing the board of elections to show cause why an order should not be made requiring the board to place the names of the three … his prayer in the petition on which the order was issued is that the board be required to certify him as the nominee of the American Labor Party.
Cited 1 timesPublished178 Misc. 988 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 17, 1942
(Matter of Wolf v. Delaney, 266 N. Y. 262 ; Matter of Clancy v. Halleran, 263 id. 258.) … Law, § 22, subd. 1; Matter of McNamara v. Holling, 282 N. Y. 109 .)
Cited 1 timesPublished12 Ct. Cl. 232 · West Virginia Court of Claims · Dec 8, 1978
Cited 3 timesPublishedBarzelay v. Board of Supervisors
47 Misc. 2d 1013 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1965
City of Buffalo, 6 N Y 2d 168; Brairton v. Gillette, 40 Misc 2d *1015 1009 , affd. 23 A D 2d 537; Neils v. … (Baldwin v. City of Buffalo, supra; Brairton v. Gillette, supra; Neils v. Yonkers, supra.)
Cited 5 timesPublishedNovick v. Workmen's Compensation Board
69 Misc. 2d 1046 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 20, 1969
F.’s, Inc. v. McKenzie, 269 App. … Catering Corp. v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedFallarino v. Board of Education
160 Misc. 2d 682 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1994
Cited 2 timesPublishedJewish Board of Family & Childrens Services Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals
141 Misc. 2d 874 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 4, 1986
(See also, Group House v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 45 NY2d 266 .) The group home is not a "non-conforming use” as respondent urges but a legally permitted one. … (Cf., Matter of Baskin v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 NY2d 942 , revg 48 AD2d 667 .) The Board was in error in sustaining the building inspector’s unreasonable interpretation of the ordinance.
Reversed by Jewish Board of Family & Children's Services, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 135 A.D.2d 859 (1987)Cited 2 timesPublished15 Pa. D. & C.5th 376 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 29, 2010
Gunn v. Grossman, 748 A2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2000); Johnson v. Hyundai Motor America, 698 A.2d 631 (Pa. … Phatak v. United Chair Company, 756 A.2d 690 (Pa. Super. 2000); Mendralla v. Weaver Corporation, 703 A.2d 480 (Pa.
Cited 0 timesPublished125 Misc. 589 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 16, 1925
Section 314 of the Education Law provides: “ No board of education shall incur a district liability in excess of the amount appropriated by a district meeting unless such board is specially authorized by law to incur such … Brown tomorrow, prepare rough set of plans embodying the features upon which they agree and submit the same to this Board together with estimate of the expense for further consideration.”
Cited 2 timesPublished45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 152 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Nov 6, 1992
Cited 1 timesPublishedCorsover v. Board of Examiners
59 Misc. 2d 251 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1968
In theory, that is a power which the Board of Examiners possesses if there is substance to the view. … Y. 559 ; Matter of Strauss v. Hannig, 256 App. Div. 662 , affd. 281 N. Y. 612 ). But that is not the situation here.
Cited 1 timesPublished13 N.J. Misc. 627 · New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau · Aug 9, 1935
Cudahy Packing Co. v. *629 Parramore, 263 U. S. 418 ; Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles, 276 U. S. 154 . This later case cites the Cudahy Packing Co. v. Parramore ease. … J., in Fitzgerald v. Clarke & Son, 2 K.
Cited 4 timesPublishedWenger v. Workmen's Compensation Board
5 Misc. 2d 751 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 25, 1956
Plaintiff is a physician and is authorized to practice before the board. The daughter of the individual defendant was involved in an industrial accident. … Plaintiff’s remedy is adequate in the event of suit by any party in interest to recover the fee paid or in the event the board takes action.
Cited 1 timesPublished170 Misc. 660 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 29, 1939
I referred to the appropriate procedure to be taken in these matters in Matter of Brady v. Board v. … In Louderback v. Board of Education ( 216 App. Div. 805 ; affd., 244 N. Y. 511 ) the ruling of the Commissioner of Education was adopted as res adjudicata.” The remaining issues require no further consideration.
Cited 1 timesPublished99 Misc. 2d 251 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 21, 1979
(Abood v Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 US, at p 241 , supra; see, also, Railway Clerks v Allen, 373 US 113, 118 .) … Professions v Eson, 11 PERB par 3068, at p 3107, supra). . Defendant board of education has not joined in either motion for summary judgment, and did not appear in this matter. . So in original.
Cited 3 timesPublished
Ask Donna