Case law

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.

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.

People ex rel. Koch v. Board of Excise

29 N.Y.S. 1147 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 27, 1894

People ex rel. Fisk v. Board of Education

23 N.Y.S. 473 · New York Supreme Court · May 12, 1893

Section 1042, therefore, authorized the board of education by a three-fourths vote to remove a principal upon the recommendation of the city superintendent, and in the case of People v. Board of Education, 52 N. Y. … The only serious question upon this appeal is as to the procedure of the board in acting upon the report of the committee.

Ryan Homes, Inc. v. Town Board of Mendon

7 Misc. 3d 709 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 28, 2005

Bede’s Episcopal Church v City of Santa Fe, 85 NM 109 , 110, 509 P2d 876, 877 [1973]; Rodgers v Village of Menomonee Falls, 55 Wis 2d 563, 570 , 201 NW2d 29, 33 [1972]; Heaton v City of Charlotte, 277 NC 506, 525-529, 178 … Town of Sardinia, 87 NY2d 668, 687 [1996]; Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406, 413-414 [1987]).

People ex rel. Noyes v. Board of Canvassers

35 N.Y. St. Rep. 1000 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1891

People ex rel. Evans v. Board of Commissioners

33 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 153 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1881

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

Johnson v. Henrico County Board of Supervisors

18 Va. Cir. 455 · Henrico County Circuit Court · Feb 5, 1990

The language of Section 2-6 belies any such intent on the part of the Board of Supervisors. … While it would appear that the Board of Supervisors could delegate final authority of approving PODs to the Commission, see § 15.1-473(b), the Court finds that the Board of Supervisors has not done so.

Corthon v. Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors

17 Va. Cir. 362 · Spotsylvania County Circuit Court · Oct 24, 1989

The Board does not oppose the action; instead, it "joins in" the Corthons’ prayer for determination of the Board’s authority "under the particular facts of this case." … The Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors has the authority to make such determination of fault. The court refuses to usurp the Board’s authority regarding that matter and expresses no opinion on the issue of fault.

Orellana v. Region Ten Community Services Board

60 Va. Cir. 350 · Virginia Circuit Court · Nov 13, 2002

Edwards v. City of Portsmouth, 237 Va. 167, 172 (1989). … City of Richmond v. Long, 58 Va. (17 Gratt.) 375 (1867); Ashbury v. Norfolk, 152 Va. 278 (1929).

Tutlis v. West Virginia Board of Regents

9 Ct. Cl. 114 · West Virginia Court of Claims · Mar 17, 1972