Case law

Hazzard v. Chase National Bank

159 Misc. 57 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 14, 1936

In Browning v. Fidelity Trust Co. ( 250 Fed. 321 ; certiorari denied, 248 U. … .) *76 As was said by the court in Browning v. Fidelity Trust Co.

Toomey v. Neenan

59 Misc. 2d 787 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 6, 1969

The case most closely in point is Reed v. Littleton ( 275 N. … The rule has been firmly established that it will not ordinarily intervene'to enjoin the enforcement of the law by the prosecuting officials (Davis v. American Society, 75 N. Y. 362 ; Delaney v. Flood, 183 N.

Jennings v. Chenango Mutual Insurance

2 Denio 75 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1846

In Schuyler v. … In Atherton v. Brown,( 14 Mass.

Commonwealth v. Camacho-Vasquez

81 Pa. D. & C.4th 353 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lebanon County · Jan 29, 2007

Brown, 503 Pa. 514 , 469 A.2d 1371 (1983). B. … See e.g., Miller v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 784 A.2d 246 (Pa.

P & C Food Markets, Inc. v. Fox

18 Misc. 2d 850 · New York Supreme Court · May 9, 1959

{Dellwood Dairy Co. v. Brown, 106 N. Y. S. 2d 749.) … (Agriculture and Markets Law, §§ 254, 257, 258-c, 258-j; Dellwood Dairy Co. v. Brown, 106 N. Y. S. 2d 749, supra; Washburn’s Dairy v. Mansfield, 200 Misc. 1017 , supra; Matter of Abrams v.

Rivera v. Smith

118 Misc. 2d 921 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 5, 1983

In Matter of Brown v McGinnis ( 10 NY2d 531 ), the Court of Appeals held that these religious rights are subject to “reasonable curtailment * * * if such is necessary for the ‘proper discipline and management of the institution … Some sexual distinctions in job assignments may be made where sex is related to a bona fide purpose (see Dothard v Rawlinson, 433 US 321 ).

Vail v. Broadway R. Co.

6 Misc. 20 · New York City Court · Nov 15, 1893

At and just beyond the point where plaintiff boarded defendant’s car, there is a net work of. rails and crossings and switches extending some considerable distance. … There was testimony on the part of the plaintiff that the setting of the switch in question was done by a small boy (the. witness Brown), who testified that he got off the car and pushed the tongue of the switch to one side

Sedor v. Community Medical Center

16 Pa. D. & C.5th 193 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County · Jul 19, 2010

Brown, supra; Midgette v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 317 F. Supp.2d 550, 563 (E.D. … See, Wisniski v. Brown & Brown Ins. Co. of PA, 906 A.2d 571, 581 (Pa.

Curry v. Napolitano

8 Pa. D. & C.2d 544 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lehigh County · Aug 27, 1956

Curry boarded the streetcar in Allentown and was homeward bound toward the neighboring city of Bethlehem. … Laurel Line Bus Co., supra, and, more recently, in Brown v.

District Council No. 9, International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

115 Misc. 2d 810 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 1, 1982

For example, the contract was approved at an open meeting of the TA board on June 11,1982. … (Matter of Mandle v Brown, 5 NY2d 51 ; Matter of Holy Spirit Assn, for Unification of World Christianity v Tax Comm. of City of N. Y, 62 AD2d 188, 194-196 , mot for lv to app den 45 NY2d 706 .)

Matter of Kay (Brown)

2024 NY Slip Op 33505(U) · Surrogate's Court, New York County · Oct 3, 2024

Kay (Petitioner), as Trustee of the Himan Brown Revocable Trust (Revocable Trust), for a determination that Respondents Melina Brown (Melina) and Barrie Brown (Barrie) violated the in terrorem clause in … on November 20, 2015, RDN resolved to investigate whether proceedings should be commenced against Petitioner, who was also an RDN board member.

Glyco v. Schultz

35 Ohio Misc. 25 · Sylvania Municipal Court · Nov 24, 1972

Donald Brown, Housing Sanitarian, Lucas County District Board of Health and Mr. … See Brown v. Southall Realty Co. (D. C. Muni. App., 1968), 237 A. 2d 834 ; Shephard v. Lerner (1960), 182 Cal. App. 2d 746 , 6 Cal. Rptr. 433 .

Hayden v. Pierce

25 N.Y.S. 55 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 23, 1893

Code Civil Proc. § 401; 1 Titus v. Poole, 60 Hun, 1 , 14 N. Y. Supp. 678 ; Wilder v. Ballou, 68 Hun, 118 , 17 N. Y. Supp. 625 ; Hill v. Supervisors, 119 N. Y. 344 , 23 N. E. Rep. 921. … Wheeler v. Webster, 1 E. D. Smith, 1; Bennett v. Cook, 43 N. Y. 537 . 3. We think no error was committed in rejecting the declaration •of the deceased, which the defendant sought to prove by the witness Parsball.

Edwards v. Pickens

66 Misc. 2d 352 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 8, 1971

(Verduce v. Board of Higher Educ., 9 AD 2d 214 .) … (Brown v. Shyne, 242 N., Y. 176 ; Corbett v. Scott, 243 N. Y. 66 .) The rationale of these cases leads to the inevitable conclusion that the same rule applies to-.the unlicensed driver.

Delta-Sonic Carwash Systems, Inc. v. Building Trades Council

168 Misc. 2d 672 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 5, 1995

Corp. v Los Angeles, 493 US 103, 110 [1989] [quoting Brown v Hotel Empls., 468 US 491, 503 (1984), supra].) "The NLRA * * * creates rights in labor and management both against one another and against the State.” … On the distinction between preemption based on the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB and preemption based on actual protection of conduct as a matter of Federal substantive right (see, Brown v Hotel Empls., 468 US 491, 502

Frank v. Frank

62 Pa. D. & C.2d 102 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lebanon County · Feb 27, 1973

The grounds for a divorce from bed and board are set forth in the Divorce Law of May 2, 1929, P. … Friedman v. Friedman, 223 Pa.

Butler v. Negley House, Inc.

20 Pa. D. & C.3d 543 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County · Feb 10, 1981

The Workmen’s Compensation Act is humanitarian legislation which should be broadly construed to protect the employe: Workmen’s Compensation *550 Appeal Board v. … The courts recognizing a claim, Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 I11. 2d 172, 384 N.E. 2d 353 (1978); Sventko v. The Kroger Co., 69 Mich. App. 644 , 245 N.W. 2d 151 (1976); Brown v.

Commonwealth v. Millhouse

34 Pa. D. & C.2d 693 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jul 29, 1964

Protesting groups seeking integration had asked the board, without tangible result, to transport the overflow by bus to a predominantly white school which had space available. … Ten years ago, in an epochal decision, the United States Supreme Court declared illegal a State’s deliberate policy of racial segregation in public schools: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 , 74 S.

Safe Harbor Power Corp.

55 Pa. D. & C.2d 591 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County · Mar 30, 1972

See United States Steel Corporation v. Board of Assessment and Revision of Taxes, 422 Pa. 463 (1966); Jones & Laughlin Tax Assessment *594 Case, 405 Pa. 421 (1961); Gulf Oil Corporation v. … See United States Steel Corporation v. Board of Assessment and Revision of Taxes, 422 Pa. 463 (1966). In Traylor v.

Langworthy & Clark v. Smith

2 Wend. 587 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1829

Brown v. Goodman, (3 T. R. 592, n. b.) was an action of debt on an arbitration bond, in which the time was limited for the arbitrator to make his award. … The court said that evidence that the contract was enlarged by paroi agreement will not support the declaration, The case of Brown v. Goodman has also been recognized by this court in Freeman v. Adams, (9 Johns.