Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
0.62s
Ulferts v. Black River Local School District Board of Education
110 Ohio Misc. 2d 9 · Medina County Court of Common Pleas · Jul 18, 2000
resolution of evidentiary conflicts.’ ” Adam v. … In Scyoc v. Wellington Exempted Village School Dist.
Cited 0 timesPublished57 Misc. 2d 1072 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 10, 1968
Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race, Brown v. … Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 , or economic status, Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 , Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353 .
Cited 7 timesPublishedEgan v. Board of Education of the City of New York
68 Misc. 347 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 15, 1910
Lax v. Fourteenth Street Store, 49 Misc. Rep. 627 ; Weinstein v. Douglas, 51 id. 559; Neustaedter v. Weiner, 108 N. Y. Supp. 650 . Present: Seabury, Guv and Bijur, JJ.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCentral Queens Allied Civic Council, Inc. v. Board of Standards & Appeals
208 Misc. 809 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 24, 1955
were deprived of a full opportunity to be heard; that the board had no power to limit the right to be heard on objections to property owners within a radius of 500 feet of the subject property; that the board was guilty … Church v. Walsh, 244 N. Y. 280, 287 .) The petitioners having failed to show that the respondent board abused its discretion in granting the variance, the determination must be sustained.
Cited 0 timesPublishedPeople ex rel. Minchen v. McLean
1 Misc. 463 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jan 15, 1893
duty until six o’clock on the morning of August twenty-ninth, and was entitled to be relieved from duty for the balance of the day; that after leaving the station house the relator, in company with officer Cullen, went to Brown … Hart v. Board of Fire Commissioners, 82 N. Y. 358 ; Kent v. Board of Fire Commis sioners, 100 id. 82; Masterson v. Stephen B. French, etc., 110 id. 494; McAleer v. Stephen B. French, etc., 119 id. 502.
Cited 1 timesPublishedConsolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment
112 Misc. 2d 422 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 25, 1982
(See People v Sugden, 35 NY2d 453 ; Salathiel v State of New York, 96 Misc 2d 72 .) … Although such inquiry was allowed *427 in Blooming Grove Props, v Board of Assessors of Town of Blooming Grove ( 34 AD2d 953 ), the inquiry there was substantially similar to a demand for an admission of the rate that is
Cited 3 timesPublishedLeBlanc v. Reston Homeowners' Ass'n
38 Va. Cir. 83 · Fairfax County Circuit Court · Jul 21, 1995
Novak, Rex Brown, and Dalia Brown (“Defendants Novak and Brown”), owners of properties with direct access to Lake Thoreau, filed a motion for leave to intervene which was granted by this Court. … See also, Bonsal v. Camp, 111 Va. 595, 597-598 (1911); Buchanan Co. v. Smith, 115 Va. 704, 707-708 (1914); McDougle v. McDougle, 214 Va. 636, 637 (1974); Mendenhall v. Cooper, 239 Va. 71, 74-75 (1990).
Cited 0 timesPublishedPeople ex rel. Kings County Gas & Illuminating Co. v. Schieren
35 N.Y.S. 64 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 26, 1895
BROWN, P. J. … Y. 196 ; People v. Board of Sup’rs of Columbia Co., 134 N. Y. 1 , 31 N. E. 322 .
Cited 6 timesPublishedLehigh Street Properties LLC v. Lehigh County Board of Assessment Appeals
42 Pa. D. & C.5th 296 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County · Nov 10, 2014
Buhl Foundation v. Board of Property Assessment, 180 A.2d 900, 902 (1962). … See Whitcomb v. City of Philadelphia, 107 A. 765 (Pa. 1919); See Brown v. Forest Water Co., 62 A. 1078 (Pa. 1906); See also Appeals and Review of Allegheny County, 519 A.2d 1080 (Pa. 1987).
Cited 0 timesPublished8 N.Y. St. Rep. 471 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1887
Brown, the agent of defendants. Indeed the entire business was done through Dawson and Brown. The counsel should have specified “the matter ” to the court. … Peck v, Valentine, 94 N. Y., 569 . The exclusion of the question to the witness Brown as-to the excitement and condition of the Chicago market. ' was proper.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSackett & Wilhelms Lithographing & Printing Co. v. National Ass'n of Employing Lithographers
61 Misc. 150 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1908
Williams v. Montgomery, 148 N. Y. 519 ; Kelley v. McMahon, 37 Hun, 212 ; Brown v. Utopia Land Co., 118 App. Div. 190 . The resolution of September twenty-first attempted to establish the “ Closed shop.” … Co. v. Waldhauer, *159 47 Misc. Rep. 7 ; McCord v. Thompson-Starrett Co., N. Y. L.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDowningtown Area School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals
42 Pa. D. & C.5th 257 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Chester County · Oct 29, 2014
Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Board of Property Assessment, 539 Pa. 453, 460 , 652 A.2d 1306, 1310 (1995). See also 16 McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations §44.124 (3rd Ed.). … Clifton v. Allegheny Co., 969 A.2d 1197, 1210 (Pa. 2009) (citing Leonard v.
Cited 0 timesPublished191 Misc. 545 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 26, 1947
[a], [c], [e]; Employers Group case, supra; Baltimore Transit Co. v. Flynn, 50 F. Supp. 382 ; May Department Stores Co. v. Brown, 60 F. Supp. 735 ). Therefore, the plaintiff may not maintain the third cause of action. … Further, if the plaintiff had any cause for complaint for failure to comply with- the directives, application should have been made to the board for redress (Sanco Piece Dye Works, Inc., v. Herrick, 33 F. Supp. 80 ).
Cited 0 timesPublishedVirginian-Pilot Media Cos., L.L.C. v. City of Norfolk School Board
81 Va. Cir. 450 · Norfolk County Circuit Court · Dec 28, 2010
That report was presented to the Norfolk School Board (“School Board”) on March 4, 2010. (See Tr. 83:6-8, May 6, 2010.) … The School Board cites to Christy v. Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office, 689 So. 2d 1365, 1367 (Fla.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMabee v. Board of Environmental Protection
Superior Court of Maine · Nov 18, 2021
The Board acted as fact-finder in this case and it will be the Board’s findings and conclusions that will be reviewed. … See Beal v. Town of Stockton Springs, 2017 ME 6, ¶ 19, 153 A.3d 768 (quoting Mr. & Mrs. V. v. York Sch. Dist., 434 F. Supp. 2d 5, 12-13 (D.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedShenandoah Mobile Co. v. Dauphin County Board of Assessment Appeals
68 Pa. D. & C.4th 140 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County · May 24, 2004
In support of their position, the appellants cite our Commonwealth Court’s holding in Radecke v. York County Board of Assessment Appeals, 798 A.2d 265 (Pa. *144 Commw. 2002). … Clayton v. Lienhard, 312 Pa. 433, 436-37 , 167 A. 321, 322 (1933).
Cited 0 timesPublished171 Misc. 687 · New York County Court, Delaware County · Jul 12, 1939
Brown, J., Acting County Judge. This matter is presented on a statement of conceded facts. … (Central Trust Co. v. West India Imp. Co., 169 N. Y. 314 ; Bush v. Lathrop, 22 id. 535; Stevenson Brewing Co. v. Iba, 155 id. 224; Fox v. Vim Electric Co., Inc., supra.)
Cited 2 timesPublished130 Misc. 2d 796 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1986
To the extent that any New York case law exists on the subject, it does not uphold his position (Brown v Brown, 122 Misc 2d 849 ; see also, In re Bramson [Bramson], 83 Ill App 3d 657, 404 NE2d 469 , wherein sporadic cohabitation … Here, the wife is not receiving "double support that is, second support from anyone with whom she shares bed and board” (Krawczuk v Krawczuk, 49 AD2d 1003 ), in the context of a new economic unit (see generally, Gallet, Former
Cited 2 timesPublished8 Wend. 505 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1832
In Martyn v. Knowllys, 8 T. … In Babcock v. Gill, 10 Johns. R. 237, it was applied to pearl ashes made out of black salts ; and Brown v. Sax, 7 Cowen, 95, was just like this case, except that there the logs were cut on the plaintiff’s land.
Cited 46 timesPublishedOley Valley Development Inc. v. Berks County Board of Assessment Appeals
41 Pa. D. & C.5th 449 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County · Aug 11, 2014
Appeals (hereinafter “board”). … Taxpayer contends that it had then, and continues to now, assess the individual lots separately and that, therefore, this case should be distinguished from the holding in Penn’s Grant Associates v.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna