Creedon v. Automatic Voting Machine Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtEdgcomb, J.
The sufficiency of plaintiff’s complaint has been challenged, and we are called upon to decide if it states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Briefly stated, the pleading alleges the following facts:
At the general election in 1933 two assessors were to be elected in the city of Utica; Mr. Creedon, the plaintiff in the instant case, was one of six candidates for that office; defendant entered into *340an agreement with the city to set up certain voting machines in various wards in the city for use on election day; defendant adjusted three of these machines in “ a negligent, careless…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Ultramares Corp. v. ToucheNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Glanzer v. . ShepardNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Lawrence v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- H. R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Defore v. Bourjois, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1958
- La Mourea v. RhudeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
- MacKown v. Illinois Publishing & Printing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1937
- Karl's Shoe Stores, Ltd. v. United Shoe MacHinery Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1956
- Ex Parte Hospital Espanol De Auxilio Mutuo De Puerto Rico, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2006
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.