Kirshenbaum v. General Outdoor Advertising Company
182 N.E. 165, 259 N.Y. 525, 84 A.L.R. 654, 1932 N.Y. LEXIS 998
Opinion
Motion for reargument and to amend remittitur denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 258 N. Y. 489.)
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Kirshenbaum v. General Outdoor Advertising Company, 182 N.E. 165, 259 N.Y. 525, 84 A.L.R. 654, 1932 N.Y. LEXIS 998 (N.Y. 1932).
182 N.E. 165 (Kirshenbaum v. General Outdoor Advertising Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Commercial Warehouse Co. v. Hyder Brothers, Inc.
411 P.2d 978 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1966)
Mitterlehner v. Mercantile National Bank at Dallas
378 S.W.2d 137 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1964)
Fedor v. Mauwehu Council, Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
143 A.2d 466 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1958)
Bauer v. 141-149 Cedar Lane Holding Co.
125 A.2d 884 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1956)
Zimmerman v. Daggett & Ramsdell
111 A.2d 448 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1955)