Legal Opinion
Iodice v. State
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 7, 1951No. Claim 28103PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.
Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye and Fuld, JJ. Froessel, J., dissents in the following memorandum : I dissent and vote for reversal for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion below (277 App. Div. 647, 654). Moreover, the evidence is uncontradicted that the natural flow of water was substantially increased by waters continuously diverted into the Delta Reservoir during July, August and through September 15, 1945, through the artificial Forestport feeder created and controlled by the State.
2Cited by11 opinions
- Baldwin Processing Co. v. Georgia Power Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Allen v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Anglo-American and Overseas Corp. v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1956
- Smith v. East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Stockwell v. Town of New BerlinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.