Case law

Canales v. Hammock

105 Misc. 2d 71 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 28, 1980

to dismiss opp den 40 NY2d 901 ; Matter of Watkins v Caldwell, 54 AD2d 42 ). … (Matter of Cummings v Regan, 45 AD 2d 222 , revd on grounds of mootness 36 NY2d 969 ; Matter of Watkins v Caldwell, supra, p 45.)

Commonwealth v. Scott

68 Va. Cir. 121 · Charlottesville County Circuit Court · May 27, 2005

See also Harris v. … Likewise, in Woodson v.

Chase v. County of Saratoga

33 Barb. 603 · New York Supreme Court · May 7, 1861

In a still later case, Boyce v. … The reasons of the court for their decision in Brady v. The Supervisors of New York, (supra,) are not given in 6 Bebden, where it is reported.

New York State Unified Court System v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

2024 NY Slip Op 31928(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jun 4, 2024

New York State Unified Court System v New York State Public Employment Relations Board 2024 NY Slip Op 31928(U) June 4, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket … NO. 102 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/04/2024 Rockland v New York State Pub. Empl.

State v. Smith

2018 Ohio 5020 · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Ross County · Nov 21, 2018

State v. James , 4th Dist. Ross No. 13CA3393, 2014-Ohio-1702 , 2014 WL 1949588 , ¶ 23 ; State v. Brown , 131 Ohio App.3d 387 , 391, 722 N.E.2d 594 (4th Dist. 1998). … State v. Reece , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27081, 2017-Ohio-222 , 2017 WL 275870 , ¶ 9, citing R.C. 2945.71(F) ; State v. Braden , 197 Ohio App.3d 534 , 2011-Ohio-6691 , 968 N.E.2d 49 , ¶ 23 (11th Dist.), citing State v.

People ex rel. Van Burkett v. Montanye

70 Misc. 2d 907 · New York County Courts · Jul 6, 1972

On June 29, 1972, the United States Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer ( 408 U. … Maggio v. Casscles (28 N Y 2d 415). There the court held that, in the matter of providing counsel at a parole revocation hearing (People ex rel. Menechino v.

Jaffe Plumbing & Heating Co. v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

51 Misc. 2d 1083 · New York Supreme Court · Aug 8, 1966

Construction of a statute by the lawmaking body, by a subsequent act, is entitled to consideration where the statute’s meaning is doubtful (Yarlott v. Brown, 192 Ind. 648 ). … Clair v. Yonkers Raceway, 13 N Y 2d 72).

People v. Sanchez

112 Misc. 2d 100 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 4, 1982

In People v Brown ( 68 AD2d 503 ) the court held that psychiatric testimony concerning pressure on an individual to commit an act was not admitted as competent testimony where the defendant entered the defense of justification … The court in the Brown case resolved the issue on the basis that the threat of imminent danger was not present.

Schwartz v. Chave

53 Misc. 2d 1007 · New York Supreme Court · Jun 8, 1967

Since it did not do so, the Board of Appeals, which is without legislative power, may not read such a limitation into the section Matter of Community Synagogue v. Bates, 1 N Y 2d 445, 455). *1010 Matter of Weinstein v. … 12 of the ordinance (Matter of Barry v.

Burkle v. Ells

4 How. Pr. 288 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1849

In Brown v. … In the 3d Wendell, 158, Bank of Orange v.

Burlock v. Peck

2 Duer 90 · The Superior Court of New York City · Mar 26, 1853

(Brown v. Pentz (decided by the Court of Appeals), N. Y. Legal Observer, vol. i., p. 24; United States v. Appleton, 1 Sum. R. 492.) Mrs. … (Davids v. Harris, 9 Barr. 503.) We are unable to perceive any substantial difference between this case, and Brown v.

Barney v. City of New York

39 Misc. 719 · New York Supreme Court · Feb 15, 1903

Gray v. Manhattan R. Co., 128 N. Y. 509 ; Riedeman v. Mount Morris Electric Light Co., 56 App. Div. 23 . . … In McElroy v. Kansas City, 21 Fed. Repr. 261, Mr.

Pina v. Hammock

109 Misc. 2d 980 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 7, 1981

The New York State Board of Parole, in evaluating petitioner’s minimum period of incarceration, considered that the petitioner had two prior felony convictions. … The Parole Board has an obligation in determining a person’s sentence to evaluate his prior criminal record.

Brookman v. Tuthill

81 Misc. 28 · New York Supreme Court · May 15, 1913

The rule that: “A devise subject to a charg’e in favor of the devisee is such an unusual method of giving away property as to raise the question at once whether that was the actual intention ” (Kinkele v. Wilson, 151 N. … Phillips v. Davies, 92 N. Y. 204 .

Brida v. Ambach

69 Misc. 2d 900 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1972

Y. v. Allen, 6 N Y 2d 127; Matter of Vetere v. … (Matter of Zarada v.

People ex rel. Schlecter v. Jennings

130 Misc. 748 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 11, 1927

Kane v. Hanley, 116 Misc. 624 ; People v. Madden. 120 App. Div. 338 ), and the exercise of the discretionary *752 power vested in the Parole Board to revoke a prisoner’s parole cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus. … Ackron v. Hunt, 122 Misc. 247 .)

Eldridge & Higgins v. Heaton & Co.

7 Ohio C.C. 499 · Ohio Circuit Courts · Sep 15, 1893

Referring to the reasoning which is at the foundation of Leroux v. Brown. Willes, J., in Williams v. Wheeler, 8 C. B. N. … If the doctrine of Leroux v. Brown, is law, the converse must be law.

Kalmbacher v. Kalmbacher

63 Pa. D. & C. 195 · Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Susquehanna County · Mar 13, 1945

See Kennedy v. Orem, 15 Dist. R. 329; McCalmont v. McCalmont, 93 Pa. Superior Ct. 203 . … Again, in Schofield v. Schofield (No. 1), 51 Pa.

People ex rel. Bradley v. Stephens

2 Abb. Pr. 348 · New York Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1866

A similar suggestion was made in relation to the act amending the city charter, in Phillips v. The Mayor, &c., (1 Hilton, 483). In Baldwin v. … In the People v. Stevens ( 5 Hill, 616 , 627), such an application was denied, on the ground that a better remedy existed, and that another claimed the office under color of title. In the People v. Dikeman ( 7 How.

Caso v. Coffey

83 Misc. 2d 614 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 17, 1975

(Steelworkers v Warrior & Gulf Co., 363 US 574 ; Steelworkers v Enterprise Corp., 363 US 593 ; Steelworkers v American Mfg. Co., 363 US 564 .) … ) teach further, that an award of a public arbitration panel must be deemed to be an order of the Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB”) for the purpose of review.