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.
Matilda Schneider, Appellant, v. The City of Rochester, Respondent, 1899 — 159 N.Y. 528 · caselaw · US
General
Matilda Schneider, Appellant, v. The City of Rochester, Respondent
159 N.Y. 528·New York Court of Appeals·1899·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
Matilda Schneider, Appellant, v. The City of Rochester, Respondent.
Reported below, 33 App. Div. 458.
(Submitted April 17, 1899;
decided April 25,1899.)
Motion to prefer an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered October 14, 1898, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the court dismissing the complaint on trial at Special Term.
The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal is of public importance.
Elbridge L. Adams for motion.
No one opposed.
[MAJORITY]
Motion granted, without costs.