Legal Opinion
Barney v. City of New York
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 15, 1903PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Action for an injunction.
1Opinion of the CourtLeventritt, J.
Two public considerations- have controlled my disposition of this application; that of the public safety and that of the public interest. The first has regard to the present; the latter to the immediate future. It is not to be gainsaid that there has been in this section of Park avenue a substantial and as yet unauthorized deviation from the established plan. It is unnecessary to review the reasoning leading to this conclusion, as I find myself in accord with its sequence, as contained in Barney v. City of New York, 38 Misc. Rep. 549. If anything, the plaintiff builds a stronger case in this…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Beekman v. . Third Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Gray v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Riedeman v. Mount Morris Electric Light Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Barney v. Board of Rapid Transit Railroad CommissionersNew York Supreme Court · 1902
- In re Board of Rapid Transit Railroad CommissionersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
3Cited by3 opinions
- Barney v. City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- City of Fort Dodge v. Fort Dodge Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Potter v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.New York Supreme Court · 1907