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.
Anna E. Lick, Respondent, v. The Town of Moravia, Appellant, 1895 — 146 N.Y. 377 · caselaw · US
General
Anna E. Lick, Respondent, v. The Town of Moravia, Appellant
146 N.Y. 377·New York Court of Appeals·1895·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
Anna E. Lick, Respondent, v. The Town of Moravia, Appellant.
(Submitted April 19, 1895;
decided May 3, 1895.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fifth judicial department, entered upon an order made J une 23, 1893, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict, and also affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.
J. A. Wright for appellant.
E. Greenfield for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm ; no opinion.
All concur, except Haight, J., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.