Case law

De Fine v. Board of Health

125 Misc. 797 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 24, 1925

The question, therefore, is whether or not the permit was properly issued by the board of health, because the petitioner is properly before the court. (Southern Leasing Co. v. Ludwig, 217 N. Y. 100 .) … district designations and map designations rules accompanying said maps, as adopted by the board of estimate and apportionment of the city of New York.

Kiley v. Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors

17 Pa. D. & C.3d 431 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County · Jul 2, 1980

Wood v. W. T. Grant Co., 6 D.& C. 3d 140 (1977). In the case at bar the only changes are in form and not substance.

Lux v. Connecticut State Board of Education

34 Conn. Supp. 257 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · Nov 25, 1977

chairperson from the state board. … L. 10-76a—h is being met in the Board’s program.”

Ott v. Perkiomen Township Board of Adjustment

38 Pa. D. & C.2d 284 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County · May 5, 1965

Appellants cite the ease of Beattie v. … These exceptions may be allowed, upon request, by the Board of Supervisors of Perkiomen Township, not by the township board of adjustment.

Borough of Hook v. Board of Assessment

6 Pa. D. & C.2d 700 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County · Jan 19, 1956

The board and the property owner jointly moved to strike off these two appeals, on the ground that they had not been filed within the period *701 allowed by law. … The borough and the school board were required to appeal from the assessment within either 30 or 60 days from November 12, 1954.

Steuben Advocate, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors

5 Misc. 2d 627 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 28, 1957

In People v. Jaehne ( 103 N. … (See Bragg v. Town of Victor, 84 App. Div. 83 ; New York Catholic Protectory v.

Twinsburg Township Board of Trustees v. Hill

46 Ohio Misc. 2d 9 · Summit County Court of Common Pleas · Oct 6, 1988

In litigating matters relating to that separation, Hill and the Twins-burg Township Board of Trustees reached an agreement to settle their disputes. … Accordingly, the court finds that the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is contrary to law, and the same is hereby reversed. Judgment accordingly.

People ex rel. Ripp v. Town Board

27 Misc. 469 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1899

Notwithstanding the allegation in the writ and in the relator’s affidavit that the town board did not consider his bills upon the merits, I think the other, facts stated therein show that the town board did so consider and … From the facts as stated, however, the town board did not pass upon the claims and make *470 the certificate as required by law. Section 162, chap. 569, Laws of 1890.

Board of Commissioners of Excise v. Willey

2 Lans. 427 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1870

Any three members shall be competent to -execute the *429 powers vested in any town board, &c. … This latter power is not conferred upon the new boards nor upon any other person or body, and there can be no conflict between the county commissioners and the new town boards of excise.

People ex rel. Sherrill v. Canal Board

4 Lans. 272 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1871

“Every positive direction,” says Judge Denio, speaking of the Constitution in the People v. Draper 15 N. … The argument of the relator is, that, having once awarded a contract to the lowest bidder, the board has complied with the Constitution, and that a subsequent increase of price is not prohibited; and he cites The People v

Board of Commissioners of Excise v. Classon

17 How. Pr. 193 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1859

Board of Supervisors of Dutchess v. Sisson

24 Wend. 386 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1840

The board then adjourned over until December, when objections were made that [ '*388 ] Wilbur was allowed *too large a sum, and the board passed a resolution to re-consider the allowance, and postpone the further consideration … This was done, as the board say, to the end that the money might be put at interest by the supervisor, to await the final decision of the board the next year.

Definnis v. Zoning Hearing Board

36 Pa. D. & C.3d 281 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Columbia County · Aug 30, 1985

Appellee agrues that the instant case is somewhat análogous tó Borough of Youngsville v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Youngsville, 69 Pa. *283 Commw. 281 , 450 A.2d 1086 (1982). … In Quality Food Markets,Inc., v. Zoning Hearing Board of South Lebanon Township 50 Pa.

Nash v. State of Illinois, Pollution Control Board

29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 359 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Apr 17, 1974

Nash v. State of Illinois, Pollution Control Board

29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 359 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Apr 17, 1974

Dyer v. State of Illinois, Pollution Control Board

29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 326 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Apr 8, 1974

O'Quinn v. New York State Board of Parole

132 Misc. 2d 92 · New York Supreme Court · May 5, 1986

(Morrissey v Brewer, supra, at p 489.) The court, however, notes that not all situations require the same kind of procedural safeguards. (Morrissey v Brewer, supra, at p 488.) … (Morrissey v Brewer, supra, at p 488.)

Rodriguez v. Westchester County Board of Elections

47 Misc. 3d 956 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2015

In Lepkowski , the Court of Appeals referenced its discussion of due diligence in Matter of Miller v Board of Assessors ( 91 NY2d 82 [1997]). … Hayduk, 45 NY2d 804 [1978]; Matter of Niebauer v Board of Elections in the City of N.Y., 76 AD3d 660 [2d Dept 2010]).

Manos v. Board of Supervisors

25 Pa. D. & C.3d 374 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County · Sep 29, 1981

ORDER And now, September 29, 1981, upon consideration of the record and briefs, the decision of the board of supervisors is reversed and we direct the Board of Supervisors of Highland Township to forthwith approve appellant … See also: Twp. of Montgomery v. Market Cen. R. Co., 12 Pa. Commw. 449 , (1974); Mid-County Manor, Inc., v. Haverford Twp. Bd. of Com’rs, 22 Pa. Commw. 149 , 348 A. 2d 472 , (1975).

Worth v. Lititz Borough Zoning Hearing Board

73 Pa. D. & C.2d 270 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County · Jun 9, 1975

Wonder, to whom the special exception was granted, bases his motion to quash on the holding of this court in Krisanosky v. New Holland Borough, 65 D. & C. 2d 464 (1974). … Section 1006(3)(b) of the code provides that appeals to court from any decision of the zoning hearing board may be taken by any party aggrieved by appeal filed within 30 days after notice of the decision is issued.