Legal Opinion
Brooks v. Engar
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 19, 1940PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtUntermyer, J.
Although formal legal procedure is not required in connection with proceedings for the expulsion of members by such associations as the defendant, those rudimentary rights must be observed which are essential to any fair trial. Among these is the right of the accused member to confront and cross-examine any witnesses who appear against him. (Reid v. Medical Society, 156 N. Y. Supp. 780 [not officially reported]; affd., 177 App. Div. 939; Cabana v. Holstein-Friesian Association, 112 Misc. 262; on this point affirmed, 196 App. Div. 842; affd., 233 N. Y. 644. See, also, Berizzi Co. v. Krausz,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stefano Berizzi Co. v. KrauszNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Cabana v. Holstein-Friesian Ass'n of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Reid v. Medical SocietyNew York Supreme Court · 1915
- Cabana v. Holstein-Friesian Ass'n of AmericaNew York Supreme Court · 1920
3Cited by9 opinions
- Silver v. New York Stock ExchangeSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Cason v. Glass Bottle Blowers Assn.California Supreme Court · 1951
- Madden v. AtkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1958
- Local No. 2, International Brotherhood of Telephone Workers v. International Brotherhood of Telephone WorkersDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1966
- Museum v. American Ass'n of MuseumsNew York Supreme Court · 1982
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.