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.
General
Phillip Wolff et al., Respondents, v. Paul Kuhne, Appellant
150 N.Y. 576·New York Court of Appeals·1896·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
Phillip Wolff et al., Respondents, v. Paul Kuhne, Appellant.
(Argued October 9, 1896;
decided October 27, 1896.)
Wolff v. Kuhne, 78 Hun, 613, affirmed.
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered May 23,1891, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon the report of a referee.
8ixt Oarl Mapff for appellant.
William 21. Mullen for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
All concur.