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.
In the Matter of the Application of Mary Jane O'Hare et al., Appellants, 1897 — 151 N.Y. 651 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of Mary Jane O'Hare et al., Appellants
151 N.Y. 651·New York Court of Appeals·1897·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
In the Matter of the Application of Mary Jane O’Hare et al., Appellants.
Matter of O’Hare, 5 App. Div. 622, affirmed.
(Argued December 14, 1896;
decided January 19, 1897.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the •Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 5, 1896, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying an application for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the comptroller of the city of New Y ork to pay to the appellants the amount of an award made to them for lands taken for the opening of Audubon avenue.
James A. Deerimg for appellants.
Francis M. Scott for the comptroller, respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.