Case law

Community Board 7 of Borough of Manhattan v. Schaffer

150 Misc. 2d 770 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 22, 1991

No. 2 v Board of Stds. & Appeals ( 43 AD2d 670 [1st Dept 1973]), the court reinstated individual tenants as proper petitioners in an article 78 proceeding to review a variance granted by respondent Board of Standards and … No. 4 v Board of Estimate ( 88 AD2d 832 [1st Dept 1982]), the petitioner Board sought to annul a decision of the Board of Estimate made after public hearings which affirmed a grant of a zoning variance to a realtor regarding

Clay v. Motor Vehicle Dealers Board

41 Va. Cir. 207 · Spotsylvania County Circuit Court · Dec 19, 1996

After receiving notice of the Board’s decision, Clay requested a formal hearing under § 9-6.14:12. The Board acknowledged Clay’s request for a hearing by letter of January 5, 1996. … In Eddine v. Eddine, 12 Va. App. 760 (1991), a pro se litigant complained that he was deprived of due process when he failed to receive notice of proceedings in a divorce case.

Independence Terrace Corp. v. Board of Standards & Appeals

35 Misc. 2d 368 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1962

In these circumstances, the board’s finding that the land is a park or a public place has substantial evidence to support it. … The board’s motion to vacate the order of certiorari is granted, the petition is dismissed, and the determination of the board affirmed. The cross motion is denied.

People ex rel. Hasbrouck v. Board of Supervisors

22 How. Pr. 71 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1861

The want of funds is no reason why the board should not audit such an account, though it might necessarily delay the payment. The order appealed from is affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

State ex rel. Board of Education v. Dunn

82 Ohio Law. Abs. 102 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division · Nov 29, 1958

See High School Board of Education v. Board of Education, 96 Oh Ap 429, 435. … Fischer v. Damm, 36 Oh Ap 515, State, ex rel. Bruml, v. Brooklyn, 126 Oh St 459; State, ex rel. Selected Properties v. Gottfried, 136 Oh St 469, 475, High School Board v. Board of Education, 96 Oh Ap 429, State, ex rel.

Council of Supervisory Associations v. Board of Education

67 Misc. 2d 548 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 2, 1971

Assignment is still the function of the board. (See Matter of Van Heusen v. Board of Educ. of City of Schenectady, 26 A D 721 [1966]; Matter of Kropf v. Board of Educ. of City of N. … (Matter of Council of Supervisory Assns. v. Board of Educ. of City of N. Y., 65 Misc 2d 430 .) Then, in New York County, Mr.

Audette v. Brown

Superior Court of Maine · Sep 7, 2005

University of Maine Foundation v. Fleet Bank, 2003 ME 20, 9, 817 A.2d 871, 874. … See Ziehl v. Maine National Bank, 383 A.2d 1364, 1368 (Me. 1978).

Harlem Bridge, M. & F. Railway Co. v. Town Board

22 N.Y.S. 1105 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 16, 1892

Bassler v. Firemen's Pension Fund Board of Managers

42 Pa. D. & C.2d 371 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County · Feb 3, 1967

See Eden Roc Country Club v. Mullhauser, 416 Pa. 61 . … Support for this conclusion is indicated in the case of Ackerman v. City of Williamsport, 11 D. & C. 2d 421.

Varian Associates — Instrument Division v. Board of Regents

13 Ct. Cl. 345 · West Virginia Court of Claims · Jan 28, 1981

Leigh v. Board of Zoning Appeals

20 Va. Cir. 11 · Fairfax County Circuit Court · Jun 22, 1989

, 233 Va. 3744 (1987) citing Board of Zoning Appeals v. … Bond, 225 Va. 177, 179-180 (1983); see also, National Memorial Park v. Board of Zoning, 232 Va. 89 (1986). (Emphasis added.) The facts disclose that Mr.

Sanders Floor Covering, Inc. v. Board of Regents

12 Ct. Cl. 71 · West Virginia Court of Claims · Jan 6, 1978

Thompson's of Morgantown, Inc. v. Board of Regents

12 Ct. Cl. 72 · West Virginia Court of Claims · Jan 6, 1978

Homestretch Corp. v. Board of Supervisors

22 Va. Cir. 549 · Culpeper County Circuit Court · Dec 27, 1988

SULLENBERGER Homestretch Corporation and individual persons (collectively Homestretch) seek declaratory and other relief against the Board of Supervisors of Culpeper County; the State Water Control Board (SWCB); South Wales … The purpose of mandamus is summarized in the recent case of Richlands Medical Assoc. v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 384, 386-87 (1985).

Brady v. New York State Board of Parole

36 Misc. 2d 159 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 30, 1962

The petitioner brings this article 78 proceeding on the authority of Matter of Browne v. … Melick v. Jennings, 132 Misc. 197, 198 ).

Rafala v. Zoning Board of Appeals

15 Conn. Supp. 259 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · Jan 3, 1948

Delaney v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Hartford, supra. … Devancy v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 132 Conn. *262 537, 542 ; Benson v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 129 Conn. 280, 283 , Delaney v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra.

Henrico County School Board v. Compton

14 Va. Cir. 200 · Henrico County Circuit Court · Nov 21, 1988

Citing Board of Education v. … In Martin v. School Board of Prince George County, 5 Va.

Tremp v. Board of Public Safety

13 Conn. Supp. 70 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · Jun 20, 1944

The demurrer of defendant board is set out in nine paragraphs. … Moreover, defendant board is not correct when it argues in effect that the exclusive remedy provided plaintiff was the statutory appeal from the board’s action of May 2, 1944.

Metcalf v. Zoning Board of Appeals

10 Conn. Supp. 480 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · Mar 17, 1942

board, was read as follows: “September 9, 1941, Zoning Board of Appeals, Municipal Building, Hartford, Connecticut. … Zoning Board of Appeals, 128 id. 351, 354 .

Mohr v. Board of Zoning Appeals

10 Conn. Supp. 333 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · Feb 2, 1942

Zoning Board of Appeals, 126 Conn. 228, 237 , and cases therein cited. This court is not permitted “by retrial de novo, to substitute its finding and conclusions for the decision of the board.” Blake vs. … , has satisfied the court that the action of the board on September 23, 1941, which is the subject of this appeal, was proper and not in any way, legally speaking, an abuse of the discretion imposed in the board under the