Case law

New York State Labor Relations Board v. Peerless Wood Products, Inc.

170 Misc. 594 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 27, 1939

The Board’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence and the order of the Board thereunder is, therefore, valid under the State Labor Relations Act. (Labor Law, §§ 700 et seq.) … The court is bound to accept the Board’s findings as conclusive when supported by evidence. (Associated Press v. National Labor Relations Board, 301 U. S. 103 ; Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co. v.

Bowler v. Garland

34 Ohio C.C. Dec. 634 · Cuyahoga Circuit Court · Mar 18, 1901

Bank v. … Brown was bound to know what took place at the meetings of the board of directors, of which he was a member.' ’ *640 And Mr.

Pedersen v. Board of Education of Central School District No. 2

9 Misc. 2d 603 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 17, 1957

The defendants Board of Education and Laurence J. … S. 2d 631; Powers v. Marrone, 206 Misc. 173 ; Fenwick v. Kappler, 205 Misc. 594 ).

Jackson v. Va. Department of Social Services

10 Va. Cir. 294 · Richmond County Circuit Court · Dec 7, 1987

The Court disagrees with the plaintiffs’ reading of the Brown v. Lukhard opinion as holding that the defendants therein committed an ultra vires act. … See Randall v. Lukhard, 709 F.2d 257 , 270 (4th Cir. 1983). Brown v. Lukhard conclusively establishes the merits of these plaintiffs’ pecuniary claims.

Penna. Distilling Co. v. Penna. Alcohol Permit Board

20 Pa. D. & C. 385 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County · Dec 2, 1933

and wearing apparel of no great value, but that on September 26, 1932, he made a certified statement to a bonding company that he was worth $176,090.94; that in the oral charge of the court in the case of Heyman, Admx., v. … Another reason given by the board is that Morris R.

Pennsylvania Milk Products Corp. v. Milk Control Board

26 Pa. D. & C. 489 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County · Apr 20, 1936

The appellee has cited as authority for its position the case of Hegeman Farms Corp. v. Baldwin et al., 293 U. S. 163 . That was a suit in equity: an injunction was prayed for. … The case of Bell Telephone Co. of Pa. v. Lewis et al., 313 Pa. 374 , cited by the appellee, is not applicable.

Whitney v. New-York Firemen Insurance

18 Johns. 208 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 15, 1820

Brown and Ttllinghast, two masters, swear, that they would not have taken the wet hemp on board their vessels, and that there was probable danger of it’s setting fire to the ship; and, in their opinion, no prudent master … of a vessel would take such a cargo on board.

Denver Union Water Co. v. Board of Co. Com'rs

1 Colo. N. P. 102 · Arapahoe County District Court · Aug 15, 1900

Co. v. Board of Equalization, 50 Cal. 35 , says: “The petitioner derives ‘its right to exist’ solely from and under the laws of the state. … R. v. Maguire, 20 Wallace, 46; Society for Savings v. Colte, 6 Wallace, 606, Philadelphia & Wilmington R. R. Co. v. Maryland, 10 How. 393 ; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Peters, 561 ; Jefferson Bank v.

MacFarlane v. Mosier

79 Misc. 460 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1913

The board' of aldermen took action as follows: “ Received, filed, and recommendation adopted,” which was concurred in by the board of eouncilmen, to the effect that the action of the board of aldermen, “be and the same is … Edge Moor Bridge Works v. Bristol, 170 Mass. 528 ; Water Commissioner of Jersey City v. Brown, 32, N. J. Law, 504; Erving v. Mayor, 131 N. Y., 133 .

Rogers v. Barker

31 Barb. 447 · New York Supreme Court · May 14, 1860

Hart & Hoyt v. … Lott, Emott and Brown, Justices.]

Pardee v. Drew

25 Wend. 458 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1841

The principle of the case of The Orange County Bank, v. Brown, 9 Wendell, 85 ,1 think decisive against the plaintiff here. That case was very fully argued before us, and the law of it deliberately settled. … See also Batson v. Donavan, 4 Barn. & Ald. 340. [ *462 ] *The principle applies fully to the case before us.

Mt. Zion Baptist Church of Port Chester, Inc. v. Brown

23 Misc. 2d 28 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1959

(Moser v. Fieland, 5 Misc 2d 937 ; Town of Harrison v. Sunny Ridge Bldrs., 170 Misc. 161 ; Ritter v. Mountain Camp Holding Corp., 252 App. Div. 602 .) … (See Serxner v. Elgart, 196 Misc. 1053 ; Woodward v. Southampton Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 161 N. Y. S. 2d 552, and Friedman v. Roseth Corp., 190 Misc. 742 , mod. on other matters sub nom. Freidman v. Odora Co., 273 App.

Thompson v. Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 2

124 Misc. 840 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 29, 1925

(Dillon v. Acme Oil Company, 49 Hun, 565 .) In 40 Cyc.

People ex rel. White v. Board of Supervisors

48 N.Y. St. Rep. 3 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 29, 1893

Bliss v. The Board of Supervisors of Cortland County, 39 St Rep., 313. … Sims v. The Fire Commissioners, 73 N. Y., 437 . It will thus be seen that the return denies that the account in question was passed upon by the board of supervisors without evidence being tahen.

People ex rel. Cosford v. Board of Supervisors

38 N.Y. St. Rep. 964 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 2, 1891

$136 70 *966 The contention here arises over the items in the first bill, “ 12 folios for record, $3.00; 82 miles traveled, $8.20;” and in the second bill, 378 folios for record, $94.50, and 170 miles traveled, $17.00 The board … Van Hoevenbergh v. Hasbrouck, 45 Barb., 197 , referrred to in the relator’s brief, was decided before the act of 1874 was passed, making the physician’s services in such case a charge against the county.

People ex rel. Rogers v. New York State Board of Parole

161 Misc. 2d 875 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1994

(See, McGinnis v United States ex rel. Pollack, 452 F2d 833 [2d Cir 1971].)

Harley Rendezvous, Inc. v. Town of Duanesburg Zoning Board of Appeals

131 Misc. 2d 1060 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1986

of the Town Board.” … Actions requiring approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals”.

Glens Falls Insurance v. National Board of Fire Underwriters Building Corp.

63 Misc. 2d 989 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 4, 1970

Board members ”. … As such it is a reasonable restriction on the shareholders’ right of transfer (Allen v. Biltmore Tissue Corp., 2 N Y 2d 534). The application is denied.

Golabowski-Spinney-Coady, Architects, Inc. v. State of Illinois, Capital Development Board

29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 502 · Court of Claims of Illinois · Jun 26, 1974

Ellison v. Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach

25 Misc. 2d 749 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 7, 1960

Justice (now Judge) Van Voorhis considered the problem several times at Special Term and held that transfer was not required *751 (Matter of Hopkins v. Board of Appeals, 178 Misc. 186, 191 ; Matter of Romig v. … Albans-Sprmgfield Corp. v. Connell, 257 N. Y. 73, 83 ; Matter of Butler v. Connell, 235 App. Div. 806 ).