Hinkley v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Van Kirk, J.:
This controversy is between the State and a riparian owner along a navigable stream where the tide ebbs and flows in respect to her title to lands filled in in front of her uplands.
Many comments of the courts in cases to which the State was not a party (as Matter of City of New York, 217 N. Y. 1) and in cases arising along the Mohawk and upper Hudson rivers (as Danes v. State of New York, 219 id. 67) are not applicable. This riparian owner has no grant from the State and no harbor or dock line has been fixed in front of her uplands. Although the claimant’s uplands have been…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. BeebeSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Langdon v. . Mayor, Etc., of City of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Sage v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Lansing v. SmithCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1829
- Rumsey v. New York & New England R. R.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Castle Associates v. SchwartzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- New York State Water Resources Commission v. LibermanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1971
- Powlowski v. Mohawk Golf ClubAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- Weismantle v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
- James Frazee Milling Co. v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1924
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.