Legal Opinion
City of New York v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 28, 1930PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtIngraham, J.
The present action has been brought by the Transit Commission of the State of New York, for and on behalf *570of the city of New York, to compel a specific performance by the defendant of the so-called “ five-cent fare clauses ” in two certain contracts to which the defendant is a party, which contracts are known, or at least have come to be known in the course of this litigation, as contract No. 3 and the elevated extension certificate. The plaintiff also seeks to enjoin the defendant from carrying out its avowed intention of increasing the existing rate of fare on its subway and elevated lines…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Gilchrist v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
- Matter of Quinby v. . Public Service Comm.New York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Admiral Realty Co. v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1935
- Lowe v. FeldmanNew York Supreme Court · 1957
- Rosenfeld Realty Co. v. Cadence Industries Corp.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1973
- Concert Radio, Inc. v. Gaf Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985