Legal Opinion
Ham v. State
New York Court of Claims
Decided November 6, 1957PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRussell G. Hunt, J.
In each of the above cases the application is to advance the claim for trial out of its regular order. The claims arise out of appropriations of property by the State and all are on the Albany calendar. The Attorney-General interposes no opposing affidavits and raises no objection.
Every litigant has a right to the trial of his case in the regular order and this is “a substantial right” (Davis v. Friedman, 196 App. Div. 926) of which he may not be deprived arbitrarily without violating the “due process” doctrine (Ringlander v. Star Co., 98 App. Div. 101, affd. 181 N. Y. 531). Within this…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Langnes v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Riglander v. Star Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Glassman v. GlassmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1956
- Matter of City of SyracuseNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- In re Mayor of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- 44 West 3rd Street Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1963
- Place Realty Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1962
- 44 West 3rd Street Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1963