Legal Opinion
Tammaro v. Bruckman
New York Supreme Court
Decided November 27, 1939PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSwezey, J.
The license which was granted to the petitioner for the period ending on September 30, 1939, gave to him no vested rights nor did it create any contract between the petitioner and the State. The license is merely a temporary permit issued in the exercise of the police powers to do that which would be prohibited. (Metropolitan Board of Excise v. Barrie, 34 N. Y. 657, 667; People ex rel. Lodes v. Department of Health, 189 id. 187, 192.)
Accordingly, at the expiration of the period specified in the license, the application for a license for any subsequent period of time constitutes a de novo…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Metropolitan Board of Excise v. . BarrieNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Matter of Calvary Presbyterian Ch. v. State Liquor AuthNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Trustees of Calvary Presbyterian Church v. State Liquor AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Rudhlan Amusement Corp. v. GeraghtyNew York Supreme Court · 1932
3Cited by6 opinions
- Paron v. City of ShakopeeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1948
- Dadukian v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
- State ex rel. Interstate Air-Parts, Inc. v. Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Airports CommissionSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- STATE EX REL. GOPHER SALES CO. v. City of AustinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Oval Bar & Restaurant, Inc. v. BruckmanNew York Supreme Court · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.