Edwards v. New York Edison Co.

New York Supreme Court

Edwards v. New York Edison Co.

149 Misc. 722, 268 N.Y.S. 24, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1737

DecidedDecember 11, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 149 Misc. 722 (Edwards v. New York Edison Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwards v. New York Edison Co., 149 Misc. 722, 268 N.Y.S. 24, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1737 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Callahan, J.

Motion is denied for the following reasons:

(1) The plaintiffs do not show the necessary jurisdictional facts to bring themselves within the provisions of chapter 781 of the Laws of 1933;

(2) The plaintiffs fail to show that they have exhausted their remedies at law. However, if it be deemed that such remedies have been exhausted then the relief sought herein should be denied for the reason that the Federal agencies have denied application for similar relief and the purpose of the State statutes is solely to secure co-operation and uniformity with the acts of the Federal government and its agencies;

(3) The plaintiffs fail to show interference, restraint or coercion on the part of the defendants sufficient to warrant the issuance of a temporary injunction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Callahan, J.

Motion is denied for the following reasons:

(1) The plaintiffs do not show the necessary jurisdictional facts to bring themselves within the provisions of chapter 781 of the Laws of 1933;

(2) The plaintiffs fail to show that they have exhausted their remedies at law. However, if it be deemed that such remedies have been exhausted then the relief sought herein should be denied for the reason that the Federal agencies have denied application for similar relief and the purpose of the State statutes is solely to secure co-operation and uniformity with the acts of the Federal government and its agencies;

(3) The plaintiffs fail to show interference, restraint or coercion on the part of the defendants sufficient to warrant the issuance of a temporary injunction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 Misc. 722, 268 N.Y.S. 24, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-new-york-edison-co-nysupct-1933.