Leader-Observer, Inc. v. State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
241 A.D. 637
Opinion
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Hill, P. J., McNamee and Crapser, JJ., concur; Rhodes and Bliss, JJ., dissent on the ground that the plaintiffs have no actionable interest in the. subject-matter involved here. (See Civ. Prac. Act, § 210; 47 C. J. 21, § 30; Lang’s Creamery, Inc., v. City of Niagara Falls, 251 N. Y. 343; Matter of Keeney, 194 id. 281; affd., 222 U. S. 525; People v. Brooklyn, F. & C. I. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 75.) [148 Misc. 757.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Leader-Observer, Inc. v. State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 241 A.D. 637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).
241 A.D. 637 (Leader-Observer, Inc. v. State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Keeney v. Comptroller of New York
222 U.S. 525 (Supreme Court, 1912)
Lang's Creamery, Inc. v. City of Niagara Falls
167 N.E. 464 (New York Court of Appeals, 1929)
People v. Brooklyn, Flatbush & Coney Island Railway Co.
89 N.Y. 75 (New York Court of Appeals, 1882)
Leader-Observer, Inc. v. State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
148 Misc. 757 (New York Supreme Court, 1933)