Legal Opinion
City of New York v. Bee Line, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 27, 1935PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTownley, J.
In the complaint at bar two causes of action are pleaded. The first relates to routes Q-2, Q-3, Q-4 and Q-5 in Jamaica. These routes were established by Bee Line, Inc., and *30all of them were operated for more than ten years. During that period Bee Line, Inc., had no franchise and paid nothing to the city of New York for the privilege of carrying passengers on those routes. On January 16, 1933, a one-year franchise contract was given to Bee Line, Inc., covering these routes. Under this franchise it agreed to pay the city of New York ten per cent of its gross receipts.
At the expiration of the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Brooklyn City Railroad v. WhalenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- Beekman v. . Third Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1897
- The Brooklyn City Railroad Company v. . WhalenNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Benjamin v. . BenjaminNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- Preston v. . HawleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Village of Lombard v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1950
- Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Municipality of CaguasCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2005
- Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. City of MorgantownWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1958
- City of New York v. Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Rosenthal v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937