Legal Opinion
Abrams v. LaGuardia
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 25, 1940PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHqfstabter, J.
The petitioners, who are justices of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, bring this proceeding, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, on the ground that since July 1, 1937, they have been receiving under protest a salary less than that to which the law entitles them.
The facts are not subject to dispute. In 1927, some few days after the court in Schieffelin v. Leary (219 App. Div. 660) had held that neither the board of estimate and apportionment nor the board of aldermen had the power to change existing salaries of Municipal Court justices, the Legislature passed a bill…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Haggerty v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Schieffelin v. LearyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
- People Ex Rel. Tyng v. . PrendergastNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Matter of Daly v. McGoldrickNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Matter of Baerenklau v. ThatcherNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Benvenga v. La GuardiaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
- Woodcock v. DickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Abrams v. LaGuardiaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Cariello v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1959
- Perno v. Exchange Mutual InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1973
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.