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.
Ratje Bunke, Respondent, v. New York Telephone Company, Appellant, 1907 — 188 N.Y. 600 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
Ratje Bunke, Respondent, v. New York Telephone Company, Appellant
188 N.Y. 600·New York Court of Appeals·1907·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
Ratje Bunke, Respondent, v. New York Telephone Company, Appellant.
(Argued April 11, 1907;
decided April 30, 1907.)
Bunke v. New York Telephone Co., 110 App. Div. 241, affirmed.
. Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 17, 1906, affirming a judgment of the Appellate Term which affirmed a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict in an action to recover for an alleged trespass.
Alfred B. Cruikshank and John II. Cahill for appellant.
Thaddeus D. Kennesori for respondent.'
[MAJORITY]
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., O’Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Hisoook and Chase, JJ.