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
Mary Fitzgerald, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The City of Binghamton, Appellant
111 N.Y. 686·New York Court of Appeals·1888·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
Mary Fitzgerald, Administratrix, etc., Respondent, v. The City of Binghamton, Appellant.
(Argued November 28, 1888;
decided December 18, 1888.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order made April 20,1886, which affirmed a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of plaintiff. »
A. D. Wales for appellant.
Edmund O’ Connor for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.