Legal Opinion · Dissent
Paramount Film Distributing Corp. v. State
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 15, 1967No. Claim No. 45976Published
1Dissent
Herlihy, J. (dissenting).
Both parties to this appeal assume that if the payments were “ voluntarily ” made by the respondent, they are not recoverable at law. The majority opinion holds that this respondent is in the same situation as the plaintiffs in Five Boro Elec. Contrs. Assn. v. City of New York (12 N Y 2d 146) in that the respondent had to pay the license fees in order to stay in business. That decision does not govern the present situation. In Five Boro, the original action brought to declare the fees excessive and illegal was commenced as a class action (Adlerstein v. City of New…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Freedman v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. . WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
- American District Telegraph Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- American District Telegraph Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. WilliamsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1918