Case law

Matter of Kay

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.

Hogan v. De Peyster

20 Barb. 100 · New York Supreme Court · May 7, 1855

The case of Thompson v. Brown, (4 John. Ch. … In this case quite as much as in Thompson v. Brown, or in Brown v.

In re Tappen

36 How. Pr. 390 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1869

V. The objection to assessment number 6, in the petition and proofs, is well taken. (a.) … Nothing is shown as to the occupancy of the assessed property and non constat, but that the names given, other than those of owners, aré the names of occupants. ■ V.

Smith v. Ladd

1 Smith & H. 244 · Superior Court of New Hampshire · Sep 15, 1808

Suppose he owned, in New Holderness, ten farms, instead of one, and lived on neither, but boarded at another place. … H. 182; Smith v. Brown, 1817, 1 N. H. 36; McIntire v. Marden, 1838, 9 N. H. 288; Young v. Rand, 1847, 18 N. H. 569. The report of the appraisers was conclusive under the Revised Statutes, as under the statute of 1791.

Ogden v. New York Mutual Insurance

17 Bosw. 447 · The Superior Court of New York City · Apr 9, 1859

In Cope v. Dodd, (1 Harr. Penn. R., 33,) the receipt given to the passenger was in evidence, and was considered as an engagement to transport 'to Liverpool. In Brown v. … (Moffat v. The East India Eng. Co., 10 East., 468; Gillan v. Simpkin, 4 Camp., 241; Yates v. Duff, 3 Car. & Payne, 369; Saunders v Drew, 3 Barn. & Adol., 445; De Silvale v. Kendall, 4 Maul. & Selw., 37.)

Rich & Co. Appeal

84 Pa. D. & C. 393 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County · Dec 17, 1952

Brown, J., —This matter is before the court on the appeal of Rich & Company, Inc., from the decision of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh denying to it a certificate of occupancy; and raises a novel legal … Taylor v.

People ex rel. Buffalo Railway Co. v. Priest

41 Misc. 548 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1903

As I have stated, practically the proceedings of the State board of tax commissioners were not reviewed. … to the city of Buffalo requires that it should be brought' *552 in and its board of assessors should be brought in as parties to these proceedings.

Manufacturers' National Bank v. Cox

9 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 572 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 1, 1874

, in regard to the agreement between Brown and the intestate. … Glassington v. Thwaites, 1 S. & S., 133. Story on P., § 178 ; Parsons, 224, 227, 228; Burton v. Wookey, 6 Mad., 367 . Coll., 186 Bentley v. Craven, 18 Beavan, 75; Struthers v. Pearce, 51 N. Y., 361 .

Reibold v. Evans

28 Ohio Law. Abs. 266 · Montgomery County Probate Court · Dec 9, 1938

See Lima v Cemetery Association, 42 Oh St 128; Jackson v Board of Education, 115 Oh St 368; Anderson v Messenger, 158 Fed. … In the case of Brown v Brown, 72 N. J.

Acer v. Merchants' Insurance

57 Barb. 68 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 7, 1870

Brown did before such conveyance. … The cases of Chase v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance Co., ( 22 Barb. 527 ;) Tyler v. Ætna Insurance Co., ( 12 Wend. 507 ; S.

Rafiy v. Javaheri

32 Misc. 3d 734 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 22, 2011

Brown, J. Plaintiff, M. … board of directors, listing the allegations he wishes the board to pursue (Continental Sec.

Cruz v. Northeastern Hospital

54 Pa. D. & C.4th 8 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Jun 11, 2001

Brown, Dr. Cohen, Dr. Koffler and Dr. … Brown, Dr. Cohen, Dr. Koffler and Dr. Buchanan It was not error to permit Dr. Brown, Dr. Cohen, Dr. Koffler and Dr.

Lyden v. Katz

29 Misc. 2d 1072 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 24, 1961

Feeny v. Board of Canvassers, 156 N. Y. 36, 46-47 ; Matter of Emmet, 150 N. Y. 538, 541 ; Election Law, § 335). … Matter of Cowles v. Board of Elections, 252 App. Div. 326 ).

Gebhard v. Gebhard

25 Misc. 1 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1898

See Hamilton v. Wright, 37 N. Y. 502 ; Brown v. Nichols, 42 id. 26; People ex rel. Adams v. Coleman, 41 Hun, 307 . Under such circumstances, she should not be heard to question his authority. … People v. Baker, 76 N. Y. 78 ; O’Dea v. O’Dea, 101 id. 23; Shepard v. Wright, 113 id. 582; Matter of Kimball, 155 id. 62; Atherton v. Atherton, id. 129.

Lane v. McDowell

25 Pa. D. & C. 296 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Westmoreland County · Jan 6, 1936

In Vankirk v. … In Schnable v.

Frankinstein v. Thomas

4 Daly 256 · New York Court of Common Pleas · Feb 15, 1872

The giving of any such receipt for a picture left for sale was an unusual thing in Brown & Spaulding’s business. … There is no essential difference in principle between this case and Covell v. Hill ( 6 N. Y. 374 ).

Baldwin v. Mildeberger

2 Hall 176 · The Superior Court of New York City · Jun 15, 1829

The objection to the competency of the plaintiff’s witness, Brown, was not well taken. … In the case of Payton v.

Bienenstok v. Ammidown

29 N.Y.S. 593 · The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo · May 15, 1894

Y. 655 ; Wright v. Brown, 67 N. Y. 1 ; Anon., Id. 53S. It is sufficient if the intent exist at the time the goods are received, though subsequent to the sale. Whitten v. Fitzwater, 129 N. Y. 626 , 29 N. E. 298 . … Stephens v. Board, 79 N. Y. 183 ; Justh v. Bank, 56 N. Y. 478 . And see Southwick v. Bank, 84 N. Y. 420 ; Hewhall v. Wyatt, 139 N. Y. 452 , 34 N. E. 1045 .

Commonwealth ex rel. Markovitz v. Trans-United Industries, Inc.

23 Pa. D. & C.2d 571 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County · Feb 27, 1961

Brown, Jr., P. J., This is an action in quo warranto brought by Victor S. Markovitz against Trans-United Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, and Frank Brus, Louis J. DiSalle, Joseph H. … Morris v. Stevens, 168 Pa. 582, 600 . Thus, it is clear that it is not only the person who claims to be entitled to the office who may institute the proceedings, but a stockholder as well: Commonwealth v.

People v. Thompson

77 Misc. 2d 700 · New York Supreme Court · Mar 15, 1974

(Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 27 , supra.) The parole officers in the instant case had ample reason to fear that the defendant was armed with a gun, or even, as Brown ¡had intimated, with “ guns ”. … (People v.