Bee Line, Inc. v. La Guardia
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtHagarty, J.
These actions for an injunction are similar in form and content and in the relief sought. The only difference is that of parties plaintiff, the first action having been commenced *153by a corporation, organized under the Transportation Corporations Law, to prevent interference with its existing operations of buses within the city of New York, and the second action having been instituted by a taxpayer who seeks the same result on the ground of public interest.
Plaintiff Bee Line, Inc., has been operating bus hues in the borough of Queens since the early part of 1926 and has increased its operations…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Pumpyansky v. . KeatingNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- Brooklyn City Railroad v. WhalenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1920
- The Brooklyn City Railroad Company v. . WhalenNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Blanshard v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Rogers v. . O'BrienNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Loos v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- Tompkins Bus Corp. v. LaGuardiaNew York Supreme Court · 1935
- Personal Finance Company of New York v. LyonNew York Supreme Court · 1953
- Reeve v. O'DwyerNew York Supreme Court · 1950
- The Forty-second Street, Manhattanville & St. Nicholas Avenue Railway Co. v. Comprehensive Omnibus Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1935
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.