Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Carolina Stiasny, as Committee of Albert E. Stiasny, a Lunatic, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Respondent, 1902 — 172 N.Y. 656 · caselaw · US
General
Carolina Stiasny, as Committee of Albert E. Stiasny, a Lunatic, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Respondent
172 N.Y. 656·New York Court of Appeals·1902·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Carolina Stiasny, as Committee of Albert E. Stiasny, a Lunatic, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Respondent.
Stiasny v. Metropolitan Street Ry. Co., 58 App. Div. 172, affirmed.
(Submitted November 14, 1902;
decided December 2, 1902.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 21, 1901, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial.
Franklin Pierce and Edwin G. Busenbury for appellant.
Charles F. Brown, Theodore H. Lord and Henry A. Robinson for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Yann and Cullen, JJ.