Case law

Hayden v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Plainville

26 Conn. Supp. 168 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · Oct 26, 1965

Johnston v. Hartford, 96 Conn. 142,151 . … Whitney Theatre Co. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 150 Conn. 285, 287 . The demurrer to the plea in abatement is sustained.

Orange County Political Coalition, Inc. v. Orange County Elections Board

36 Fla. Supp. 2d 97 · Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida · Jul 27, 1989

See Wadham v Board of County Commissioners, 501 So.2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). If the voters were able to do this, then, by the same rationale, the County authorities should be able to carry such mandate into effect. … Also, in Winterfield v Town of Palm Beach, 455 So.2d 359 (Fla. 1984) the Florida Supreme Court applied the “single-purpose” rule.

Staunton Mall Realty Management, L.L.C. v. Augusta County Board of Supervisors

92 Va. Cir. 96 · Augusta County Circuit Court · Jul 8, 2015

Both Vienna Metro, L.L.C. v. Board of Supervisors, 86 Va. Cir. 421 (Fairfax Cnty. 2013), and IPROC Norfolk, L.L.C. v. City of Norfolk, 86 Va. … In City of Richmond v.

State v. Stevens

130 Misc. 2d 790 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 24, 1985

(State of New York v Princess Prestige Co., 42 NY2d 104 ; Matter of State of New York v Intercounty Mortgagee Corp., 87 AD2d 748 ; Matter of State of New York v Citibank, 537 F Supp 1192 [SDNY 1982].) *792 The papers establish … (State of New York v Princess Prestige Co., supra; People v Volkswagen of Am., 47 AD2d 868 ; State of New York v Ginzburg, 104 Misc 2d 292 .)

McStay v. Erie Railroad

99 Misc. 673 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1917

Munday v. Nassau El. R. Co., 99 Misc. Rep. 28 ; Von Der Born v. Schultz, 104 App. Div. 94 ; Hospital Supply Co. v. O’Neill, 10 Misc. Rep. 655 ; Morss v. Sherrill, 63 Barb. 21, 27 ; Perlman v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. … Dobiecki v. Sharp, 88 N. Y. 203 ; Ayres v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 158 id. 254 ; Archer v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 106 id. 589; Paulding v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 132 App. Div. 68 ; Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v.

South Wales Utility, Inc. v. Commonwealth ex rel. State Water Control Board

22 Va. Cir. 16 · Culpeper County Circuit Court · May 11, 1990

(Utility), a Virginia public service corporation, has appealed to this court a decision of the State Water Control Board (SWCB) denying Utility’s application for a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (permit … erroneously failed to issue a permit because of litigation pending in this court. *17 The SWCB, on recommendation of its staff, denied the permit until litigation in this court in the suit of Homestretch Corporation, et al. v.

Micca v. Board of Education of the City School District

46 Misc. 3d 221 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 7, 2014

v Board of Educ. of the City School Dist. of the City of N.Y., 89 AD3d 486, 487 [1st Dept 2011]). … Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs. of Nassau County, 63 NY2d 100 [1984].)

New York State Labor Relations Board v. Mount Pleasant Westchester Cemetery Corp.

208 Misc. 50 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1955

This is an application by the New York State Labor Relations Board for an order of this court enforcing an order of the board, dated October 29, 1954, as against the respondent Mount Pleasant Westchester Cemetery Corporation … Corp. v. U. S., 307 U. S. 125, 146 ).” (Matter of Mounting & Finishing Co. v. McGoldrick, 294 N. Y. 104, 108 . See, also, Red Hood Cold Storage Co. v. State Dept. of Labor, 295 N. Y. 1, 9 .)

P. Hayden Saddlery Hardware Co. v. Slade & Kelton

3 Ohio C.C. 67 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Jan 15, 1888

Under that statute, in the case of Copeland v. … That he does not hold it for the benefit of all the sub-contractors is shown by the de *71 cisions in Copeland v. Manton and Dunn & Witt v.

Westwood Lake, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County Water & Sewer Board

33 Fla. Supp. 95 · Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County · Feb 11, 1970

Florida Power Corp. v. Pinellas Utility Board, 40 So.2d 350 (Fla. 1949). The third issue must also be resolved against plaintiff, on several grounds. … As stated in Miami Bridge Co. v.

Community Utilities Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County Water & Sewer Board

26 Fla. Supp. 151 · Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Miami-Dade County · May 23, 1966

See Reese v. Shavertown Water Co., 89 PUR NS 553 (1951). … The board’s opinion as to what is a proper rate of return is not a valid substitute for evidence. See Public Service Commission v. Ely Light and Power Co., 393 P 2d 305 (Nov. 1964); Washington Gas Light Company v.

Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Florida Railroad Assessment Board

22 Fla. Supp. 175 · Circuit Court of the 2nd Judicial Circuit of Florida, Leon County · Mar 27, 1964

Green v. Florida East Coast Railway Co., 141 So.2d 326 . Great Northern Railway Co. v. Weeks, 297 U.S. 135 , 56 S. Ct. 426 , 80 L.Ed. 532 , L. & N. R. R. Co. v. … German-American Lumber Co. et al. v. Barbee, 59 Fla, 493, headnote 1, 52 So. 292 . See Hackney v. McKenney, 151 So. 524 , State v. Lehman, 131 So. 333 , Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U. S. 517 , 53 S. Ct. 481 , 77 L.

Stahl Soap Corp. v. City of New York

7 Misc. 2d 901 · New York Supreme Court · May 6, 1957

The court, taking judicial notice of matters of public record (Brown v. City of New York, 213 App. Div. 206 , affd. 241 N. Y. 96 ), and treating such facts as if embodied in the complaint (City of Buffalo v. … In Meyer v.

Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment

15 Pa. D. & C.5th 289 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 28, 2010

board’s decision. … Perin v. Gochnauer, 173 Pa. Super. 609, 612 , 98 A.2d 755, 756 (1953). A nunc pro tunc appeal based upon an untimely filing is proper only if there was fraud or a breakdown in the procedural process. Sofronski v.

Bryant v. Board of Educ., Chenango Forks Cent. School Dist.

2004 NY Slip Op 24175 · New York Supreme Court, Broome County · May 18, 2004

Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ. of Chenango Forks Cent. School Dist. ( 2004 NY Slip Op 24175 ) Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ. of Chenango Forks Cent. … Bryant et al., Petitioners, v Board of Education of Chenango Forks Central School District, Respondent. Supreme Court, Broome County, May 18, 2004 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL James R. Sandner , Latham, for petitioners.

Hennessey v. People

21 How. Pr. 239 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1861

been previously occupied by the prisoner as a grocery store, and as a resi *240 dence for his family, under a lease, which had two years to run, but which was uninhabited at the time of the fire; that some of the weather boards … The indictment is for setting fire to the dwelling house of Caroline Brown, in the night-time.

Columbus Green Cabs, Inc. v. Board of Review Bureau of Unemployment Compensation

88 Ohio Law. Abs. 107 · Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division · Oct 30, 1961

The case of Brown-Brockmeyer Co. v. … The action of the Board of Review in adopting these rules is presumed to have been done in good faith and imparts verity. Bloch v. Glander, 151 Ohio St., 381 .

Bean v. Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 17

71 Misc. 2d 747 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 22, 1972

acts of school authorities by the Commissioner of Education, it has been held that the Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Commissioner to hear and determine an application of this nature (Matter of Galloway v. … may not substitute its judgment for that of the school board.

Patterson's Estate

25 Pa. D. & C. 364 · Pennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · Jan 10, 1936

In that case, distinguishing the facts from those in Brown v. McCurdy, Admr., et al., supra, Mr. … It would therefore clearly appear that this case is ruled by Brown v. McCurdy, Admr., et al., supra. The claim is dismissed.

People ex rel. Dumahaut v. Board of Fire Commissioners

17 Jones & S. 369 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 3, 1883

What the relator did was intentional, and therefore willful (People v. Brooks, 1 Den. 459). … The action of the Board in removal is dffirmed with costs. An order should be entered confirming the determination reviewed with costs, fixed at the sum of $25 and disbursements. Freedman and O’Gorman, JJ., concurred.