Case law

Box Board & Lining Co. v. Vincennes Paper Co.

45 Misc. 1 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1904

Lukens Iron & Steel Co. v. Payne, 13 App. Div. 11 , 43 N. Y. Supp. 37 6; Parmele Co. v. Haas, 171 N. Y. 579 . … Lindheim v. Sitt, 33 Misc. Rep. 62 . Moreover, in view of the conclusion expressed by the Court of Appeals upon the question certified in Parmele Co. v.

Keeney v. Grand Trunk Railway Co.

59 Barb. 104 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 6, 1870

Co. v. The Merchants’ Bank, 6 How. U. S. 344. Wells and Tucker v. The Steam Nav. Co., 4 Seld. 375. French v. The Buffalo, N. Y. and Erie R. Co., 4 Keyes, 108 .) … (Scheiffelin v. Harvey, 6 John. 175 . Alexander v. Greene, 7 Hill, 533 . Wells and Tucker v. The Steam Nav. Co., 4 Seld. 375. Perkins v. The New York Cent. R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 196,206 . New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v.

People ex rel. Morgan v. Board of Supervisors

15 N.Y.S. 580 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 2, 1891

Coffin v. Coke, 4 Hun, 616 ; Robins v.Gould, 1 Abb. N. C. 133 ; McDonald v. Mallory, 46 N. Y. Super. Ct.58; Comins v. Supervisors, 3 Thomp. & C. 296. … Palen v. Starr, 7 Hun, 422 ; Ferguson v. Crawford, 86 N. Y. 609 .

DiPietro v. New York State Board of Elections

30 Misc. 3d 449 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 27, 2010

The instant situation is similar to the anomalous situation in Matter of Curley v Zacek ( 22 AD3d 954 [2005]). … The court has checked the Board’s computations and has determined that the number of invalid signatures after the Board’s review is 2,349.

Parker v. Pa. Liquor Control Board

34 Pa. D. & C.3d 373 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Fayette County · Apr 9, 1984

We conclude we may as we have found a different and significant material fact than that considered by the Liquor Control Board. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. … Latrobe Armed Services Association, 16 Pa.Commw. 199, 329 A.2d 529 (1974); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v.

People ex rel. Lefever v. Board of Supervisors

32 Barb. 473 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 3, 1860

(People v. Ransom, 2 Comst. 490. People v. Supervisors of Westchester, 15 Barb. 608.) In this instance the writ appears to do so. … (Commercial Bank v. Canal Commissioners, 10 Wend. 25 .) The return is to be considered an entirety. (The People v. Vail, I Wend. 38.)

Schwartz v. Board of School Directors

71 Pa. D. & C.2d 339 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County · Jan 15, 1975

Township (hereinafter referred to as “the defendent board”). … From Rodenbaugh v. Phila.

Water & Power Resources Board v. Pawk

70 Pa. D. & C.2d 247 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Butler County · Oct 30, 1974

Pawk appealed the order to the department hearing board. … Labor Relations Board v. Butz, 411 Pa. 360 , 192 A. 2d 707 (1963).

Video Microwave, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

77 Misc. 2d 798 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 8, 1974

Pruzan v. Redman ( 60 Wn. 2d 521 ). … Water Corp. v. Michaelis, 28 A D 2d 887; Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v. Horn, 23 A D 2d 583; Matter of Long Is. Light. Co. v. City of Long Beach, 280 App. Div. 823 , affd. 305 N.

Valdivieso v. Community School Board of District One

67 Misc. 2d 1007 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 2, 1970

Although both sides argue its significance, citing Stern v. Cangiano (N. Y. L. J., Dec. 24, 1969, p. 12, col. 3) neither has seen fit to submit a copy of the latter letter or resolution. … Y. v. Siebel, 6 N Y 2d 536, 543). The court may not impute to the Legislature an intent other than that warranted by the language of the legislation (Waterloo Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Shanahan, 128 N. Y. 345 ).

Overholtzer v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

31 Pa. D. & C.2d 793 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County · Jun 13, 1963

The evils of “flexible selective zoning” condemned by the Supreme Court in Eves v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 401 Pa. 211 (1960), are present here and must be struck down. … Where zoning regulations have no reasonable relationship to public health, safety, morals or *796 general welfare they are invalid: Schmalz v. Buckingham Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 389 Pa. 295 (1957).

Panati v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

22 Pa. D. & C.2d 752 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County · Jun 30, 1960

of a manifest abuse of discretion or an error of law”: Walker v. … Zoning Board of Adjustment, 380 Pa. 228, 234 (1955).

Wisniski v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

17 Pa. D. & C.2d 509 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County · Dec 30, 1958

The board’s opinion states that it “rests its decision upon the relief which the applicant sought, that is a special exception.” Mrs. … The board’s counsel counters that the board did, in fact, consider all the elements which are involved in a variance.

Gibson v. Zoning Board of Adjustment

13 Pa. D. & C.2d 203 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County · May 31, 1957

Judge Kreider, in Paxtang Borough Board of Adjustment v. … To support this contention, they cite Novello v. Board of Adjustment, 384 Pa. 294 ; Garner v. Board of Adjustment, 388 Pa. 98 , and Baronoff v. Board of Adjustment, 385 Pa. 110 .

Hampton v. Norristown Board of Adjustment

72 Pa. D. & C. 270 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County · May 6, 1950

Bosler may feel, and the board apparently felt, that the fact that Mr. … See Babcock v. Laidlaw et al., 113 N. J. Eq. 318, 166 Atl. 632, 633 (1933); Busse & Borgmann Co. v. Upchurch, 60 Ohio App. 349 , 21 N. E. (2d) 349, 352 (1938); Building Commissioner of Brookline v.

People ex rel. Noyes v. Board of Canvassers

12 N.Y.S. 173 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 1, 1890

People v. Board of Canvassers, 64 How. Pr. 337 : Felt's Case, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 207; People v. Cook, 8 N. Y. 67 . … that said board be reconvened for the purpose of correcting said errors.

Board of Education Concord Special School District v. Board of Education Blue Ash Special School District

15 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 521 · Hamilton Circuit Court · Jul 8, 1910

State ex rel. McGovern v. Board of Elections

24 Ohio Misc. 135 · Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · Jun 9, 1970

The board of elections refused to put the proposed amendment on the ballot because “the board feels the ordinance is illegal because it is retroactive to 1969.” Was this action of the board of elections proper? … This case could be decided on the board’s action alone because nowhere does the court find in E.

Board of Managers v. Church of Holy Comforter

164 Misc. 2d 661 · New York Supreme Court · May 28, 1993

This rule was later restated and approved by the Supreme Court in Jones v Wolf (443 US 595 [1979]). … Church v United Presbyt. Church, at 122, supra).

Meyer v. Board of Co. Comrs.

1 Colo. N. P. 23 · Meyer County District Court · Jan 15, 1900

Dixon Co. v. Field, 111 U. S. 83 ; Lake Co. v. Graham, 130 U. S. 674 , 9 Sup. Ct. 654; Sutliff v. Commissioners Lake Co., 97 Fed. Rep. 270. … In the People v.