Legal Opinion
Mehta v. Surles
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided August 29, 1989No. 89 Civ. 3697 (GLG)PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
GOETTEL, District Judge:
Although we are all too familiar with the attitude embodied in the acronym “NIMBY” (“Not In My BackYard”), this case presents an unusual scenario more appropriately called “NIMDY” (“Not In My DrivewaY”). The plaintiffs, Dinesh and Pravina Mehta, are the owners in fee of premises located at 367 Old Army Road, Scarsdale, New York. Their property shares a common driveway with the adjacent premises located at 371 Old Army Road and is burdened with an easement for ingress and egress running to the residents of 371 Old Army Road. 371 Old Army Road has been purchased…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Daniels v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Parratt v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- DuLaney v. Oklahoma State Department of HealthSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
- Stewart v. RoodSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
- Mehta v. SurlesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Mehta v. SurlesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Navarro Carrilo v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2019
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.