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.
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Viola W. Myer, Respondent, v. Robert B. Adam et al., as Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo, Appellants, 1902 — 173 N.Y. 582 · caselaw · US
General
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Viola W. Myer, Respondent, v. Robert B. Adam et al., as Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo, Appellants
173 N.Y. 582·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Viola W. Myer, Respondent, v. Robert B. Adam et al., as Grade Crossing Commissioners of the City of Buffalo, Appellants.
People ex rel. Myer v. Adam, 74 App. Div. 604, appeal dismissed.
(Argued December 1, 1902;
decided December 16, 1902.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July. 18, 1902, which reversed a determination of the grade crossing commissioners of the city of Buffalo that the relator’s lands were not injured so as to entitle her to compensation under the Grade Crossing Act.
De Witt Clinton and Spencer 0 Union for appellants.
Adolph Rebadow for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal dismissed, with costs, on the ground that while certiorari was properly taken to review the action of the grade crossing commissioners, nevertheless the return presents only a question of fact that the Appellate Division has passed upon and their decision cannot he reviewed in this court; no opinion.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Martin,.Vann, Cullen and Werner, JJ.