Bandel v. . the City of New York
98 N.E. 1097, 204 N.Y. 683, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 935
Opinion
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Culler, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner and Collin, JJ.; Hiscock, J., concurs on the ground that plaintiff having been licensed to practice osteopathy under the provisions of section 14 of chapter 344 of the Laws of 1907, and not in accordance with the last clause of subdivision 6 of section 7 of said act and related pro *684 visions, is not in position to claim that the ordinance in question is arbitrarily and unreasonably discriminating. Concurs: Vann, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bandel v. . the City of New York, 98 N.E. 1097, 204 N.Y. 683, 1912 N.Y. LEXIS 935 (N.Y. 1912).
98 N.E. 1097 (Bandel v. . the City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kurk v. Medical Society of County of Queens, Inc.
46 Misc. 2d 790 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)