Legal Opinion

Strauss v. University of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Decided March 8, 1957PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFuld, J.

We decide the case, as it must be decided (see, e.g., Black Riv. Regulating Dist. v. Adirondack League Club, 307 N. Y. 475, 486-487; Quaker Oats Co. v. City of New York, 295 N. Y. 527, 536; Boardwalk & Seashore Corp. v. Murdock, 286 N. Y. 494, 498), on the basis of the law as it exists today. On January 25, 1957, which was the day following the argument of the appeal in this court, the regulation here involved was amended to add this sentence :

“ Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prevent the illumination of a sign setting forth the name of the practitioner and the word ‘ optometrist…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Black River Regulating District v. Adirondack League ClubNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
  2. Boardwalk & Seashore Corp. v. MurdockNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
  3. Quaker Oats Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1946

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Hodes v. AxelrodNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. In re Ray A. M.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
  3. Department of Social Services ex rel. Sandra C. v. Thomas J. S.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  4. Kee v. BaberTexas Supreme Court · 1957
  5. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1979

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API