Legal Opinion

Rushford v. LaGuardia

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 10, 1938PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSchmuck, J.

The petitioners hereby seek to compel the respondents to pay them the salary fixed in the budget of the city of New York which has been declared by the Court of Appeals to be the valid budget for the year 1938. (Dixon v. LaGuardia, 277 N. Y. 84.)

*582The respondents resist on the ground that they, in the exercise of authority vested in them by sections 67 and 68 of New York City Charter, were empowered to act as they did.

By virtue of the budget adopted before December 25, 1937, the salaries of the petitioners were fixed at $3,240 annually. After the formation of the new board of estimate on…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Thoma v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
  2. Quayle v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
  3. Whitmore v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
  4. Dixon v. LaguardiaNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
  5. Schieffelin v. LearyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. O'Connor v. KernNew York Supreme Court · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API