Case law

Kneettle v. Newcomb

31 Barb. 169 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 5, 1857

The *170 property was taken by Brown, a deputy sheriff, upon an execution in favor of Newcomb, against the plaintiff, by direction of the defendant Newcomb. … Upon this point the decision in Crawford v. Lockwood ( 9 How. 548 ) is conclusive. That was a decision at general term, upon the very point in issue in this case.

Travis v. Board of Assessment Review

183 Misc. 2d 699 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 3, 1999

If equipment such as that involved in this case should be assessable as real property “the remedy is legislative rather than by strained or distortive judicial decisional analysis” (Matter of Crossman Cadillac v Board of … However, all of it can be removed without significant injury to the premises and is capable of reinstallation elsewhere (see, Matter of Crossman Cadillac v Board of Assessors, supra).

Southland Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Board

36 Pa. D. & C.3d 59 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County · Jun 10, 1985

See Foltz, Jr. v. Monroeville and Borden, 5 Pa. Commw. 304 , 290 A.2d 269 (1972) and Upper Allen Township v. Zoning Hearing Board, 77 Pa. Commw. 582 , 466 A.2d 292 (1983). … O’Neill v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 434 Pa. 331 , 254 A.2d 12 (1969). Personal and economic hardship alone will not support a grant of a variance, Heister Kamp v. Zoning Hearing Board of the City of Lancaster, 34 Pa.

Mangold v. Board of Liquor Control

76 Ohio Law. Abs. 124 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division · Nov 13, 1956

THE ORDER OF THE BOARD OF LIQUOR CONTROL (REVOKING APPELLANT’S D-l and D-2 PERMITS), IS REVERSED AND THE APPEAL THEREFROM SUSTAINED. This is an appeal from an order of the Board of Liquor Control, under §119.12 R. … C., wherein said Board revoked appellant’s D-l and D-2 permits, based on the alleged possession and sale upon the permit premises of whiskey, while not the holder of a proper permit therefor, and while said permits D-l and

People ex rel. Yates v. Canal Board

13 Barb. 432 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 16, 1852

Various cases were referred to, on the argument, to show that this was a proper case for a mandamus, to put the Canal Board in motion. In The King v. … The King v. The Bishop of Ely, (5 Durn. & East, 475,) was a case of a similar character. Commonwealth v.

Worthington v. Plainfield Board of Education

23 N.J. Misc. 14 · New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau · Nov 22, 1944

Zimmer, Secretary of the Board of Education, which he did. *17 “It is also stipulated that if Mr. … Zimmer were called he would testify that he is the Secretary of the Board of Education of Plainfield and on March 9th, 1943, ike following resolution was adopted by the Board of Education: “Besolved, that the work of the

McNellis v. American Box Board Co.

53 Misc. 2d 479 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1967

(Fremay v. Modern Plastic Corp, supra; Millner v. Noudar, Lda. 24 A D 2d 326; Kramer v. Vogl, 17 NY 2d 27 .) … [c]); Schroeder v. Loomis, 46 Misc 2d 184 ; Wilsey v. Gavett, supra).

Cannon v. Board of Liquor Control

67 Ohio Law. Abs. 350 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division · Apr 7, 1953

BOARD OF LIQUOR CONTROL ORDER (REJECTING APPLICATION FOR D-5 PERMIT), — REVERSED. … In the case of Clouston, etc., et al. v Board of Liquor Control, et al, No. 181,856, this court, through Reynolds, J., ruled Section 3 of Regulation 12 of said Board of Liquor Control was invalid.

Brown v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters Local No. 7

77 Ohio Law. Abs. 81 · Clermont County Court of Common Pleas · Aug 27, 1956

Anderson Sons Co. v. Union, 156 Oh St 541. … Therefore, under the principle of Crosby v. Rath, 136 Oh St 352, and under the authority of Anderson v. Union, 38 LRRN 2324, Fairlawn Meats, Inc. v. Union, 99 Oh Ap 517, Johnson Bros. v. Union, 51 O. O. 122 and Bean v.

Pirher v. Board of Public Works

35 N.J. Super. 193 · Middlesex County Superior Court · Apr 29, 1955

Justice Oliphant distinguished the Eckert case from the case of De Lorenzo v. Board of Commissioners of City of Newark, 134 N. J. L. 7 (E. & A. 1946), and Reinhold v. Town of Irvington, 134 N. J. L. 416 (Sup. … De Lorenzo v. [Board of Commissioners of City of] Newark, supra. The status of a dependent is incompatible with that definition.

Kreck v. Board of Public Safety

65 Misc. 2d 379 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 13, 1971

After a hearing held before said board, the petitioner was found guilty of the charge, and was punished by a forfeiture of 10 days’ pay. … board against the petitioner herein is hereby reversed, and that charges be dismissed.

Dubbs v. Board of Assessment Review

81 Misc. 2d 591 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 19, 1975

(Martin v City of Philadelphia, 420 Pa 14, 17.) … (See City of Newark v Essex County Bd. of Taxation, 54 NJ 171, supra; Walter Reade, Inc. v Dennis Twp. 36 NJ 435; see, also, Orbison v Welsh, 242 Ind 385; Matter of Carney v Ohio Turnpike Comm. 167 Ohio St 273; Visina v Freeman

Legislative Conference v. Board of Higher Education

67 Misc. 2d 648 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1971

Petitioner again raises the argument that board approval is pro forma. … Therefore, the court in the instant case cannot make the same determination as in Katz v. Nassau Community Coll. (Sup. Ct., Nassau County, Spec.

Kay v. Board of Higher Education

173 Misc. 943 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1940

In Matter of Carow v. Bd. of Education ( 272 N. … (Piper v. Hoard, 107 N. Y. 73, 76 .)

Beverly Building Corp. v. Board of Adjustment

28 Pa. D. & C.2d 761 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County · Dec 4, 1961

Maurer v. … vested right to build a structure which violates a zoning ordinance can only be acquired by securing a building permit and expending substantial sums in reliance on the permit: Dunlap Appeal, 370 Pa. 31 (1952); Herskovits v.

Frigidaire Division v. Board of Review

59 Ohio Law. Abs. 302 · Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas · Feb 16, 1950

Collopy, Administrator of the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, appellant v. Board of Review, et al, Common Pleas Court, Warren County, and Brown-Brockmeyer Co., employer-appellee v. … Wiper Member, Board of Review” Date of Mailing: June 14, 1949 Since the instant case was heard before the Board of Review, the Supreme Court, in the case of Brown-Brockmeyer Company v.

Hansen v. Board of Commissioners

278 Or. App. 794 · Benton County Circuit Court, Oregon · Jun 15, 2016

See generally Friends of Yamhill County v. Board of Commissioners, 278 Or App 472, 474-75 , 377 P3d 670 (2016) (summarizing Measure 37 regulatory scheme). … In making that determination, the board applied the common law vested right test articulated by the Supreme Court in Clackamas Co. v. Holmes, 265 Or 193, 198-99 , 508 P2d 190 (1973).

Streng v. Westchester County Board of Elections

49 Misc. 3d 811 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 6, 2015

This proceeding addresses only the Working Families Party line and Board of Elections petition No. 31-101. … Even in election cases, technical defects in the notarization of a document do not invalidate the acts of a notary (Matter of Berney v Bosworth, 87 AD3d 948 [2d Dept 2011]; Matter of Hudson v Board of Elections of City of

People ex rel. Vickerman v. Contracting Board

46 Barb. 254 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1865

Bullard, v. … (Conolly v. Conolly, 16 Howard, 224 . Rogers v. Beard, 20 id. 282 . Otis v. Spencer, 16 N. Y. Rep. 614 .)

Johnson v. State Medical Board

147 Ohio Misc. 2d 121 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division · Jun 13, 2008

Our Place, Inc. v. … Bergin v. McCall (D.Or.2007), case No. 06-6311-HO, 2007 WL 2344924 , was a civil rights challenge to Oregon Medical Board proceeding. Perez-Rocha v.