Legal Opinion

Mayes Co. v. State of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 30, 1966PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*551 Per Curiam.

Claimant is the owner of a manufacturing plant which uses substantial quantities of water in its processes. On its land were springs which fed a pond from which claimant was able to take sufficient water for its manufacturing needs.

The State condemned a fractional part of an acre which contained most of the area of the pond, including a spring which fed it, and constructed a road on the site. There was, however, as claimant’s engineering witness conceded, “considerable underground water ” in the area of the claimant’s plant.

An expert witness for the State testified that he could…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. . McPhersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
  2. Colrick v. . SwinburneNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
  3. People's Gas & Electric Co. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. City of Pleasant Hill v. First Baptist ChurchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
  2. Accusystems, Inc. v. Honeywell Information Systems, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1984
  3. Utah Department of Transportation v. Rayco Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1979
  4. State v. Sun Oil CompanyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1978
  5. Vogt v. AbishDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1987

12 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