Home/New York Court of Appeals/Iodice v. State

Iodice v. State

103 N.E.2d 348, 303 N.Y. 740, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 1136
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 7, 1951·No. Claim 28103·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughban, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye and Fuld, JJ. Froessel, J., dissents in the following memorandum : I dissent and vote for reversal for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion below (277 App. Div. 647, 654). Moreover, the evidence is uncontradicted that the natural flow of water was substantially increased by waters continuously diverted into the Delta Reservoir during July, August and through September 15, 1945, through the artificial Forestport feeder created and controlled by the State.

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

Iodice v. State, 103 N.E.2d 348, 303 N.Y. 740, 1951 N.Y. LEXIS 1136 (N.Y. 1951).

103 N.E.2d 348 (Iodice v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Elliott v. City of N.Y.
Second Circuit, 2012
Elliott v. City of New York
497 F. App'x 108 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Stormes v. United Water New York, Inc.
74 A.D.3d 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Stockwell v. Town of New Berlin
69 A.D.3d 1266 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Allen v. City of New York
49 A.D.3d 1126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Baldwin Processing Co. v. Georgia Power Co.
143 S.E.2d 761 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Schloop v. State
18 Misc. 2d 485 (New York State Court of Claims, 1959)
Anglo-American and Overseas Corp. v. United States
144 F. Supp. 635 (S.D. New York, 1956)
Destito v. State
1 A.D.2d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1955)
Destito v. State
207 Misc. 493 (New York State Court of Claims, 1955)
Smith v. East Bay Municipal Utility District
265 P.2d 610 (California Court of Appeal, 1954)