Stern Bros. v. New York Edison Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtUntermyer, J.
The complaint contains two causes of action. The first cause of action alleges that prior to 1929 the plaintiff had been supplied by the defendant with electric current and service at rates specified in a schedule known as “ Service Classification No. 2.” In 1929 the defendant filed with the Public Service Commission a new alternative or optional schedule known as “ Service Classification No: 5.” The defendant, it is charged, “ thereupon represented to the plaintiff that certain conditions of usage then existing in the premises occupied by the plaintiff and the use of the current then being…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Continental Insurance v. MercadanteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
- Rothmiller v. . SteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Purcell v. New York Central R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Emery v. Rochester Telephone Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Holloway v. ForsythMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,357 Marbury Management, Inc., and Harry Bader, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellees v. Alfred Kohn, and Wood, Walker & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Hadden v. Consolidated Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Primavera Familienstifung v. AskinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2001
- State Ex Rel. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1974
- Harper v. AdametzSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.