Case law

Havemeyer v. Cunningham

35 Barb. 515 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 16, 1861

Of the cases referred to by the defendants’ counsel, Russel v. Nicholl, ( 3 Wend. 112;) Lovatt v. Hamilton, (5 Mees. & Weis. 644;) Alwyn v. Prior, (Ryan & Moody, 406;) Hawes v. Humble, (2 Camp. 327, n.;) Boyd v. … In Vanrede v.

People v. Bankers' Loan & Investment Co.

34 N.Y.S. 235 · New York Court of Common Pleas · Jun 27, 1895

submitted for decision is whether the board had authority for the act Unquestionably, a board of directors has no power to reduce the capital stock of a corporation, as fixed by its constitution. … Railroad Co. v. Schuyler, 34 N. Y. 30 ; Sutherland v. Olcott, 95 N. Y. 93 ; Railway Co. v. Allerton, 18 Wall 233, 234.

Brand v. Goodwin

24 N.Y. St. Rep. 305 · City of New York Municipal Court · Feb 6, 1889

Browne, J. … The board of directors of the company are inferentially the board referred to in the notice of discharge.

Matter of Dzaferovic v. New York City Dept. of Fin.

2024 NY Slip Op 32163(U) · New York Supreme Court, New York County · Jun 26, 2024

2d Dept 2010]; Matter of Brown 158352/2023 DZAFEROVIC, CAZIM ET AL vs. … School Dist., 45 NY2d 279, 285 [1978]; Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist.

People ex rel. Hilliker v. Pierce

64 Misc. 627 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 15, 1909

Co. v. … In Mayor v.

Smith v. Roberts

60 Misc. 427 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 15, 1908

He prays for an injunction staying the defendant, as clerk of the board of supervisors, from proceeding with such publication or further carrying out the instructions of the board in regard to the matter. … The plaintiff argues that the language of the statute is mandatory and that the electors, having ratified the selection of a site made by one board of supervisors, a succeeding board may not submit another proposition,but

Vogen Funding, L.P. v. Wener

81 Va. Cir. 100 · Roanoke County Circuit Court · Aug 8, 2010

Virginia Dep’t of Corrections v. Brown, 259 Va. 697, 704, 706-07 , 529 S.E.2d 96, 100-102 (2000); cf. Mabe v. Wythe County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 53 Va. … As in Brown , the applicable maxim of construction is expressio unius est exclusio alterius (or, as Justice Scalia prefers, and perhaps more accurately here, “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.” Holland v.

Beers v. New York Life Insurance

20 N.Y.S. 788 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 18, 1892

Its resident physicians were to be appointed by the board, to hold their office during the pleasure of the board. … But, unfortunately, the rule in this state has been relaxed; and in the cases of Van Cott v. Van Brunt, 82 N. Y. 535 , and Gamble v. Water Co., 123 N. Y. 91 , 25 N. E.

Frink v. Town of Amenia

91 Misc. 2d 491 · New York County Courts · Sep 21, 1977

board avers that the plaintiff, in the Surico actions, represented the town board members in an individual capacity, and that therefore the town board itself is not liable. (6) Neither the town board nor the individual members … (State v Village of Owego, 39 NY2d 1017 ; Cioffi v Giannone, 56 AD2d 620 .)

Trustees of German Township v. Farmers & Citizens Sav. Bank Co.

66 Ohio Law. Abs. 332 · Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas · May 14, 1953

Hibbs v. Board of County Commissioners, 35 Oh St 458, decided in 1880. However, on April 20, 1896, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in Hixson v. Burson, 54 Oh St 470, 43 N. … Langdon v. Trustees of Columbia Township, XIV W. L. B. 325; Hopple v. Trustees of Brown Tp., 13 Oh St 311; Trustees of Harrison Tp. v. Harrison Tp., 5 Ohio N. P., N.

Bradley v. De Goicouria

12 Daly 393 · New York Court of Common Pleas · May 22, 1884

Pendleton, 4 Cowen 581; 8 Cowen 727; Edgerton v. Page, 1 Hilton 320; 20 N. Y. 281 ; Cohen v. Dupont, 1 Sandf. 260 ; Halligan v. Wade, 21 Ill. 470 ; Preston v. Jones, 2 Ired. Eq. 350 ; 6 Bac. Abr. … ’s quitting the apartments, after he had waited for a fortnight for the landlord to comply with the order of the Board of Health, as the landlord bringing lewd women upon the premises, as in Dyett v.

Bay Ferries, LTD v. Board of Commissioners for the Port of Portland

Superior Court of Maine · Jun 8, 2018

Counts IV and V allege the fee increase is not supported by record evidence or findings and the Board did not make written findings of fact and conclusions of law. … Under these circumstances, the Court finds the Board Rules must yield to Rule SOB. Cf Smith v.

Dennison v. Lawrence

27 Misc. 99 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 15, 1899

v. … Brown, one of the heirs, and the result of the suit brought by her administrator against the executor ( 25 App. Div. 239 ), do not enlarge the scope of the contract made, nor aid the plaintiff in any manner.

Adams v. Incorporated Village of Westhampton Beach

71 Misc. 2d 579 · New York Supreme Court · Sep 26, 1972

Matter of Eriksen v. Commerdinger, 24 A D 2d 934). The first of these cases sought a variance in view of the fact that the subdivided lot did not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. … The issues are discussed .at length in Matter of Fullam v. Kronman ( 51 Misc 2d 1079 , affd. 31 A D 2d 947, affd. 26 N Y 2d 725).

McCarthy v. LaGuardia

172 Misc. 260 · New York Supreme Court · Oct 23, 1939

(Matter of Wingate v. McGoldrick, 279 N. Y. 246 ; Matter of Hetherington v. McGoldrick , Id. 687; Matter of Rosenthal v. McGoldrick , Id. 688.) … In Matter of Rushford v.

Barnett v. Walker

39 Misc. 323 · New York Supreme Court · Nov 15, 1902

Williams v. Merle, 11 Wend. 80 ; Ely v. Ehle, 3 N. Y. 509 ; Everett v. Coffin, 6 Wend. 603 ; Everett v. Saltus, 15 id. 474, and same case on error, 20 id. 269. … Wyckoff v. Southern Hotel Co., 24 Mo. App. 382 ; McClain v. Williams, 11 S. Dak. 227.

Bowen v. Newell

5 Sandf. 326 · The Superior Court of New York City · Dec 27, 1851

It will be seen that such is precisely the case of the check in question, and we entirely concur in the ruling in the case of Brown. (See also Harris v. Clark, 3 Comstock, p. 114,115.) … (Bank of Washington v. Triplett, 1 Peters, 80 ; Mills v. U. S. Bank, 11 Wheaton, 431 .)

In re Burning

137 Misc. 173 · New York Supreme Court · Apr 1, 1930

proceedings were taken by the defendant by way of mandamus to compel the superintendent of buildings to cancel his revocation of the permit, which motion was denied, and the denial affirmed by the Appellate Division (Redden v. … The petitioner refers, as the authority that section 24(a) is ehminated from the zoning resolution, to Matter of Fox Lane Corporation v. Mann (216 App. Biv. 813) and Fox Lane Corporation v. Moore (Id. 813; affd., 243 N.

Williams v. Flagg Storage Warehouse Co.

128 Misc. 566 · New York Supreme Court · Jan 20, 1927

(Harms v. City of N. Y., 69 Misc. 315 ; Stephens v. Crawford, 209 App. Div. 142,150 .) The case of Brown v. Bronson ( 93 App. Div. 312 ) is cited by the defendant warehouse company. … This would be analogous to the Brown case.

Atkins v. Guest

158 Misc. 2d 426 · New York Supreme Court · Jul 19, 1993

Conduct, 174 AD2d 225 ; Doe v Office of Professional Med. … As the Appellate Division, First Department, noted in Matter of Levin v Guest (supra), since the Board is under an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of complaints it receives pursuant to Public Health Law § 230 (