Legal Opinion

Isenbarth v. Bartnett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 19, 1923PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Kelby, J.:

This court on a prior appeal herein held that mandamus was a proper remedy, and reargument was denied. (See 205 App. Div. 845; Id. 895.) On this appeal the question presented is whether the Zoning Ordinance, in its operation upon petitioner’s property, is unreasonable and, therefore, invalid. The court below has held that it is. The brief of the appellant does not appear to contend that this finding and conclusion did not have support in the evidence, its argument being along the line of the assertion that the Zoning Ordinance was a reasonable exercise of the police power. The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Sheldon v. . Board of AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  2. People ex rel. Lankton v. RobertsNew York Supreme Court · 1915

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Jones v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Friends of Shawangunks, Inc. v. KnowltonNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  3. Matter of Leitner v. New York Telephone Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
  4. Mayor of Wilmington v. TurkCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1925
  5. Gardner v. Le BoeufNew York Supreme Court · 1960

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API