Legal Opinion

City of Little Falls v. State

New York Court of Claims

Decided October 3, 1942No. Claim No. 25847; Claim No. 25848PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarrett, P. J.

These claims were tried together. Claimant, a municipal corporation, in a communication to its mayor dated October 22, 1938, was advised by the State that the greater part of Mohawk street in the city of Little Falls would be required for widening the Barge canal, and claimant was thereby requested to abandon such area for street purposes and informed that, upon its abandonment, the lands would be acquired by appropriation proceedings. On October 27, 1938, the common council of claimant adopted a resolution expressing claimant’s willingness and intention to abandon the lands for street…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. The People v. . KerrNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
  2. In Re the Appraisal of Damages of TownsendNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
  3. Rigney v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  4. Mark v. . the StateNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
  5. Warner v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1948
  2. City of Schenectady v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API