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
Rufus M. Choate, Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant
160 N.Y. 669·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Rufus M. Choate, Respondent, v. The City of Buffalo, Appellant.
(Submitted October 3, 1899;
decided October 10, 1899.)
'Reported below, 39 App. Div. 379.
Motion to place on present calendar an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 3, 1899, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court dismissing the complaint on trial at Special Term, and granting a new trial.
The motion was made upon the ground that the speedy hearing of the appeal is of public importance.
William, H. Cuddeback for motion.
Lockwood & Lockwood opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.'