Case law

Dock v. Board of School Directors of Mifflinburg Area School District

63 Pa. D. & C.2d 46 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Union County · Dec 26, 1972

L. 564, sec. 3, 24 PS §2-290.1, required the Union County Board of School Directors to submit a plan of reorganization of administrative units for county school districts to the State Board of Education before July 1, 1964 … V. Defendants also except to two conclusions of law: A. That the Resolution of the Western Area School District of February 13, 1964, was and is binding on the Mifflinburg Area School District; B.

American Legion Clifton Post No. 421 v. Board of Liquor Control

68 Ohio Law. Abs. 361 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division · Jul 1, 1954

Cincinnati v. Roettinger, 105 Oh St 145; Madjorous v. State, 113 Oh St 427; 37 O. Jur. 555. Sec. 295. However, in 33 C. … Entry accordingly with exceptions by counsel for the Board of Liquor Control.

Youmans v. Board of Education of the Pataskala Special School District

13 Ohio C.C. 207 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Oct 15, 1896

The control and management of the schools of this state are given the boards of education,given by the statute to the boards of education, and these boards cannot be interfered with in any manner by the court unless there … Edward Kibler and John David Jones, on behalf of the Board of Education, etc.

Board of County Commissioners v. Citizens' Electric Railway, Light & Power Co.

9 Ohio C.C. 183 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1895

It is maintained by counsel for defendant in error that the case of the Commissioners of Gallia County v. Holcomb, 7 Ohio, 232, sustains their position. … Counsel for defendant in error cite Commissioners of Mahoning County v. The Railroad Company, 45 Ohio St., 401 , as sustaining the decision of the trial judge.

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

54 Misc. 2d 1085 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 19, 1967

The Board of Education has the authority and the duty to adopt rules and regulations for the orderly and efficient operation of the school. … The board, however, must consider the general over-all operation of the school. The motion is, therefore, denied.

Board of Education of Central School District No. 3 v. Gorga

9 Misc. 2d 58 · New York County Courts · Dec 20, 1957

City of New York v. V. I. K. Corp.

6 Misc. 2d 884 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 9, 1957

Y. v. Avenue U Service Center, 5 Misc 2d 795 ). … No mention therein is made with respect to priorities over sovereigns in their claims for taxes (see Matter of Brown Print Co., 285 N. Y. 47 ).

Bingham v. Hyland

6 N.Y.S. 75 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1889

Weaver v. Barden, 49 N. Y. 286 ; Cary v. White, 52 N. Y. 138 ; Webster v. Van Steenbergh, 46 Barb. 211 ; Westbrook v. Gleason, 79 N. Y. 23, 28 ; Yowng v. Guy, 87 N. Y. 457, 462 . … Chadwick v. Fonner, 69 N. Y. 404 , and the cases cited; Waring v.

Board of Education v. Lakeland Federation of Teachers

89 Misc. 2d 897 · New York Supreme Court · May 7, 1975

(See Lehman v Dobbs Ferry Bd. of Educ., 66 Misc 2d 996 .) … [Maratta], 9 NY2d 319 ; Cole v Mostel, 27 AD2d 721 ; Matter of Lipsky [Fashion Art Corp.]. 23 AD2d 775 ; Lehman v Dobbs Ferry Bd. of Educ, supra.)

State Labor Relations Board v. Loram Realty Corp.

3 Misc. 2d 709 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 9, 1952

and (2) Was the board’s order proper when made? ” (Matter of New York State Labor Relations Bd. v. Timen, 264 App. Div. 120, 122 .) … (New York State Labor Relations Bd. v. Morales & Sons, 113 N. Y. S. 2d 518, Beldock, J.; Labor Bd. v. Bradford Dyeing Assn., 310 U. S. 318 ; Medo Corp. v. Labor Bd., 321 U. S. 678 .)

Hickey Ford Sales, Inc. v. Board of Education

88 Misc. 2d 93 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 18, 1976

State v Board of Trustees, Vil. of Cayuga Hgts., 42 AD2d 660, 661 ; Matter of Andresen v Rice, 277 NY 271, 282 ; Matter of Ahern v Board of Supervisors of County of Suffolk, 6 NY2d 376 ; Matter of Allen v Eberling, 24 AD2d … (Bailey v Colonna, 73 Misc 2d 299 ; Hopkins v Hannah, 135 Misc 750, 756 .)

Calcione v. New York State Board of Parole

84 Misc. 2d 509 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 23, 1975

In the instant proceeding, petitioner cannot prepare and present his case before the Parole Board due to the serious nature of his present mental condition. … Accordingly, the petition is granted to the extent that respondent is directed to permit petitioner to be assisted by counsel and to speak in his behalf before the Board of Parole at the parole release hearing scheduled for

Rite Aid Corp. v. City of Troy Board of Assessment Review

47 Misc. 3d 791 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 5, 2015

After the petitioner rested, respondent moved to dismiss, relying primarily on a recent Court of Appeals case, Matter of Board of Mgrs. of French Oaks Condominium v Town of Amherst ( 23 NY3d 168 [2014]). … Home Assn, v Assessor of City of Rye, Heron Realty Corp. v New York State *801 Urban Dev. Corp. and Matter of Target No. 1954 v Board of Assessors.

People ex rel. Farnsworth v. Board of Sup'rs of Orleans County

20 N.Y.S. 398 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 21, 1892

The board of supervisors isa body of strictly limited powers. It has no power of legislation except as expressly conferred by statute, (Const, art. 3, § 23; People v. … This conclusion is so radical that we think it unnecessary to consider other grounds of objection to the action of the board of supervisors.

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

189 Misc. 321 · New York Supreme Court · May 26, 1947

Kleinger v. Wilson, 254 App. Div. 406, 409 ; People ex rel. Brackett v. Kaiser, 209 App. Div. 722 .) … (People v. Santa Clara Lumber Co., 213 N. Y. 61, 67 ; People v. Arnink, 270 App. Div. 792 , affd. 296 N. Y. 657 .)

Layne v. New York State Board of Parole

75 Misc. 2d 658 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 5, 1973

There are, of course, significant differences between minimum sentencing by a court and that by a board, the most significant being that the board may, from time to time, reduce such minimum period (Correction Law, § 212, … subd. 2) while the *659 court cannot (Walker v.

People v. Bird

8 N.Y.S. 801 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 10, 1890

The election of the water board was legal. The right of the trustees to be a water board, in the absence of an election of commissioners, upon request of the tax-payers, was only provisional. … The witness Brown, who was the clerk of the village, testified that the names represented a majority of ail the tax-payers, of the village as contained in their last assessment roll.

Freihofer v. Lake George Zoning Board of Appeals

133 Misc. 2d 1057 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 5, 1986

zoning ordinances to take notice of the land uses of its neighboring communities and, in fact, to consider regional needs and requirements (see, Berenson v Town of New Castle, supra; Blitz v Town of New Castle, 94 AD2d 92 … Significantly, this defense was not pleaded by the respondent Board.

Shannon Fredericksburg Motor Inn, Inc. v. Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors

9 Va. Cir. 418 · Spotsylvania County Circuit Court · Jul 12, 1977

Counsel for the Board believes that the adoption by the Board of Robert’s Rules of Order is irrelevant and that the Board has the inherent power to abolish, suspend, modify or waive its own rule. … The Board further cites City of Pasadena v.

Committee of Interns & Residents v. New York State Labor Relations Board

89 Misc. 2d 424 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1977

In Marine Engineers v Interlake Co. ( 370 US 173 ), the National board had concluded that petitioner unions were "labor organizations” pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act. … in the Garmon case, 359 U.S., at 246, 'is with delimiting areas * * * which must be free from state regulation if national policy is to be left unhampered’” ( 370 US 173, 184-185 , supra; see, also, Bethlehem Steel Co. v