Case law

People ex rel. McMackin v. Board of Police

53 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 677 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1887

People ex rel. Humphrey v. Board of Supervisors

37 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 146 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1883

Osterhout, and others in this court, this board of supervisors was enjoined from levying or assessing these very claims upon the ground that they were illegal, fraudulent and exorbitant. … Duffy v. West Troy, 25 Hun, 179 ; chap. 554, Laws 1880.) We notice a fact to which the counsel have not referred and that is that both of the judgments are stated in the transcripts to be canceled of record.

People ex rel. Hencken v. Board of Managers

30 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 667 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1881

Board of Supervisors v. Sea View Railway Co.

30 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 180 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1880

(Pierce v. Dart, 7 Cow., 609 ; Lansing v. Smith, 8 Id., 146.) Ocean Parkway is a public highway, laid out and improved, in pursuance of legislative provision, by the park commissioners of the city of Brooklyn. … Then the board of .supervisors of the county is to make annual provision by tax for the payment of interest on these certificates; and so much of them as shall be chargeable against the parcels of property assessed is to

People ex rel. Burnham v. Board of Supervisors

57 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 600 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1888

People ex rel. Reynolds v. Board of Education

1 N.Y.S. 743 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1888

This is an application in behalf of certain attendance agents of the board of education of the city of Brooklyn, to review the action of that board in refusing to recognize the relators as such attendance agents, and pay … It is the claim of the relators that the proceedings of the board of education on that election were irregular.

People ex rel. Sammis v. Board of Supervisors

12 N.Y.S. 21 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1890

In this case, no such certificate was obtained, but was refused by the commissioners, and there was therefore no power vested in the board of supervisors to appoint commissioners, and the commissioners so appointed had no … If the foregoing views are correct, it follows that the action of the board of supervisors was without authority, and must be reversed.

Rubenstein v. Board of Regents of the University

177 Misc. 253 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 10, 1941

In Brown v. University of the State of New York (242 App. Div. 85; affd., 266 N. Y. 598 ) this rule was called into question. It was held to be invalid as unauthorized and exceeding statutory authority. … The only legislative action taken in the premises since the Brown case is chapter 406 of the Laws of 1935.

Rattigan v. Board of Sup'rs of Cayuga County

152 N.Y.S. 402 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 22, 1915

In the case of Board of Supervisors v. Ellis, 59 N. … The Ellis Case is cited with approval in West v. City of Utica, 71 Hun, 544 , 24 N. Y. Supp. 1075 . In the case of People v.

Suburbia Apartments, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Nassau

66 Misc. 2d 918 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1971

Y. v. Tax Comm, of City of N. Y. (32 A D 2d 658) ; People ex rel. Sutphen v. Feitner ( 27 Misc. 384 ) ; Matter of Mid Point Apts. v. Town of Poughkeepsie ( 59 Misc 2d 846 ) ; Rijek Realty v. Crist, (16 A D 2d 964). … (Matter of Pepsi-Cola Co. v. Tax Comm. of City of N. Y., 19 A D 2d 56 ; People ex rel. Gale v. Tax Comm. of City of N. Y., 17 A D 2d 225.)

Board of Commissioners of Public Charities & Correction v. McGurrin

6 Daly 349 · New York Court of Common Pleas · Mar 6, 1876

By the metropolitan police act of 1866, •the commissioners of the board of health of the city were constituted the hoard of excise within the metropolitan police district, excluding the county of Westchester. … The 22d section of the act of 1857 gave the power to sue for such penalties only to the boards of commissioners of excise, *355 that act, in a previous section, having provided for the appointment of such a board in every

Greenwald v. Weisbaum

6 Misc. 3d 281 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 6, 2004

In Cross & Brown, the board of directors not only represented the corporation, it controlled it, and therefore the board could not arbitrate a dispute where it had control over one of the disputants. … DV99-2676-B); Waite v BDO Seidman (Mass Super Ct 2002, No. 01-4009-C); Jehle v BDO Seidman, LLP (Mo Cir Ct 2002, No. 012-10118); Brown v BDO Seidman (Mich Cir Ct 1992, File No. 919343-NO); Pioso v Abernathy (Wis Ct App, L.C

Liberty Development Co. v. Board of Supervisors

73 Pa. D. & C.4th 63 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Adams County · Jun 24, 2005

Thornbury Township Board of Supervisors v. W.D.D. Inc., 119 Pa. … Borough of Youngsville v. Zoning Hearing Board, 69 Pa.

VACOM, Inc. v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors

33 Va. Cir. 39 · Fairfax County Circuit Court · Sep 22, 1993

VACOM alleges that the Board has refused to respond. By refusing to respond the County has refused or neglected VACOM’s claim. See Board of Supervisors v. Miller & Smith, 222 Va. 230 , 279 S.E.2d 158 (1981). 10. … In Kingsden East Realty v.

State ex rel. Robinson v. Board of Trustees

67 Ohio Law. Abs. 29 · Lawrence County Common Pleas Court · Jul 1, 1951

Dayton Gymnastic Club v. Board of Liquor Control

68 Ohio Law. Abs. 153 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division · Mar 24, 1953

In the case of State v. … State, ex reí. v. Carian, 133 Oh St 53,” citing also, vice versa, Village of Struthers v. Sokoc, 108 Oh St 263, 2nd Syl.

Halaby v. Board of Directors of the University

65 Ohio Law. Abs. 577 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County · Jun 23, 1953

“The board of directors may receive other students on such terms as to tuition or otherwise as they see fit.” … The only reported case in Ohio in which similar statutory language has been construed is State ex rel Owens v.

Richardson v. Board of Trustees of Sycamore Township

6 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 505 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County · Feb 27, 1908

Section 3974 of the Revised Statutes reads, “that no member of a board of education shall have any pecuniary interest,, either direct or indirect, in any contract of the board,” and so on, practically the same as Section … (Bellaire Goblet Co. v. Findlay, 5 O. C. C., 418.)

State ex rel. Beakler v. Board of Education

19 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 88 · Clark County Court of Common Pleas · May 8, 1916

The relators allege that on the 13th day of December they filed with the defendant, the county board of education of Clark county, and the board of education of Greene county, a petition *89 addressed to the boards of said … State, ex rel, v. Commissioners, 36 O. S., 326. The action of a board of education may be controlled by mandamus in proper cases. State, ex rel, v. Board, 35 O. S., 368; State, ex rel, v. Board, 27 O. S., 96.

State ex rel. Merrill v. Board of Education

4 Ohio C.C. 97 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1889

It must also be conceded on the other side, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Chinn v. … The case of Dutten v.