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 the Utica and Mohawk Valley Railway Company, Appellant, v. Frank Spohn et al., Respondents, 1906 — 184 N.Y. 565 · caselaw · US
General
In the Matter of the Application of the Utica and Mohawk Valley Railway Company, Appellant, v. Frank Spohn et al., Respondents
184 N.Y. 565·New York Court of Appeals·1906·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 the Utica and Mohawk Valley Railway Company, Appellant, v. Frank Spohn et al., Respondents.
Matter of Utica & M. V. Ry. Co. v. Spohn, 105 App. Div. 627, affirmed.
(Submitted February 27, 1906;
decided March 13, 1906.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered June 26, 1905, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming the report of commissioners of appraisal in condemnation proceedings.
William Neman and Charles D. Thomas for appellant.
P. C. J. De Angelis and William J. Cardinier for respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., O’Brien, Haight, Yann, Werner and Willard Bartlett, JJ. Not sitting: Hiscock, J.