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 William J. O'Leary, Respondent, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, v. The Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant, 1903 — 174 N.Y. 511 · caselaw · US
Corporations
In the Matter of the Application of William J. O'Leary, Respondent, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, v. The Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant
174 N.Y. 511·New York Court of Appeals·1903·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 William J. O’Leary, Respondent, for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, v. The Board of Education of the City of New York, Appellant.
Matter of O’Leary v. Board of Education, 78 App. Div. 475, reversed.
(Argued February 10, 1903;
decided March 17, 1903.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 9, 1903, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to reinstate the petitioner in the position of principal of an evening high school in the borough of Brooklyn, and granted such writ.
George I. Rives, Corporation Counsel {James McKeen of counsel), for appellant.
Conrad Same Keyes for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
The order of the Appellate Division herein should be reversed and that of the Special Term'affirmed, with costs to the appellant, upon the authority of Matter of Cusack v. Board of Education, etc. (174 N. Y. 136).
Paekeb, Oh. J., Gbay, O’Bbien, Haight, Mabtin, Yann and Webneb, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, etc.