TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People ex rel. Browning, King and Company v. Stover

The People of the State of New York Ex Rel. Browning, King and Company, Respondent, v. Charles B. Stover Et Al., as Commissioners of Parks of the City of New York, Respondents. English-American Realty Company Et Al., Appellants

People ex rel. Browning, King & Co. v. Stover, 96 N.E. 1126 (N.Y. 1911)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 5, 1911
Citations
96 N.E. 1126203 N.Y. 6131911 N.Y. LEXIS 1497
Summary
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 1, 1911, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel defendants to proceed with the removal of incumbrances on certain streets of the city of New York, consisting of show windows, cornices and stoops attached to a certain building in said city, and granted said motion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock, Chase and Collin, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1913: 11914: 11916: 21931: 119132026peak 1916 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Roock v. Womer233 A.D. 566 (1931)
  2. Appleton v. City of New York163 A.D. 680 (1914)
  3. Empire Leasing Co. v. Mecca Realty Co.174 A.D. 433 (1916)
  4. Herald Square Realty Co. v. Saks & Co.157 A.D. 566 (1913) · Dissent
  5. Hellinger v. City of New York95 Misc. 394 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Roock v. Womer233 A.D. 566 (1931)
  2. Empire Leasing Co. v. Mecca Realty Co.174 A.D. 433 (1916)
  3. Hellinger v. City of New York95 Misc. 394 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1916)
  4. Appleton v. City of New York163 A.D. 680 (1914)
  5. Herald Square Realty Co. v. Saks & Co.157 A.D. 566 (1913) · Dissent

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list