Hermitage Co. v. Goldfogle
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Dowling, J.:
The question involved in this appeal and these three submissions of controversy is the same, viz., the constitutionality of chapter 949 of the Laws of 1920, as amended by chapter 444 of the Laws of 1921 and chapter 281 of the Laws of 1922, and the validity of the ordinance adopted by the board of aldermen of the city of New York thereunder (City Ordinance No. 112) on February 15, 1921, approved by the mayor on February 18, 1921, and by the board of estimate and apportionment on February 25, 1921.
Chapter 949 of the Laws of 1920 was enacted at an extraordinary session of the…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Barbier v. ConnollySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Block v. HirshSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Ex Parte MilliganSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Noble State Bank v. HaskellSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Dickinson v. PorterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1948
- People Ex Rel. Pratt v. GoldfogleNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Bush Terminal Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1934
- People ex rel. Broderick v. GoldfogleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- In re the Estate of Young, New York County Courts1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.