State Of New York Court Of Appeals Edward Antenen Vs New York Telephone Company PDF Download

Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download State Of New York Court Of Appeals Edward Antenen Vs New York Telephone Company PDF full book. Access full book title State Of New York Court Of Appeals Edward Antenen Vs New York Telephone Company.

New York Court of Appeals. Records and Briefs.

New York Court of Appeals. Records and Briefs.
Author: New York (State). Court of Appeals.
Publisher:
Total Pages: 872
Release: 1935
Genre: Law
ISBN:

Download New York Court of Appeals. Records and Briefs. Book in PDF, ePub and Kindle

Volume contains: Unreported Case (Anderson v. Brooklyn & Queens Transit Corp.) 266 NY 53r (Ansorge v. Armour) Unreported Case (Antenen v. N.Y. Telephone Co.) Unreported Case (Arnold v. Bertolini) Unreported Case (Austin v. Atlantic Beach Bridge Corp.) 266 NY 53r (Axelroad v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.) 266 NY 53r (Bardash v. Smith) 266 NY 53r (Barish v. Edbro Realty Co.) Unreported Case (Barker v. A. I. Namm & Son) Unreported Case (Basford v. Standard Shipping Co.) Unreported Case (Baumgardt v. Baumgardt) 266 NY 53r (Baxter v. Aiello) Unreported Case (Bennett v. Crescent Athletic-Hamilton Club) 266 NY 53r (Bennett v. Edward) Unreported Case (Berenson v. Woodbury) Unreported Case (Berkowitz v. Mengel Co.) Unreported Case (Blythe v. Skouras Theatres Corp.) 266 NY 53r (Blaisdell v. N. P. Severin, Inc.) 266 NY 53r (Bohr v. Merritt) Unreported Case (Boylhart v. Rosaire Cont. Co.)


City of New York, Plaintiff-appellant V. New York Telephone Company, Defendant-appellee ; Grassroots Action Inc. & John B. O'Sullivan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated-plaintiffs-appellants, V. New York Telephone Company, Defendant-appellee

City of New York, Plaintiff-appellant V. New York Telephone Company, Defendant-appellee ; Grassroots Action Inc. & John B. O'Sullivan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated-plaintiffs-appellants, V. New York Telephone Company, Defendant-appellee
Author: United States. District Court (New York : Southern District)
Publisher:
Total Pages: 45
Release: 1972
Genre: New York (N.Y.)
ISBN:

Download City of New York, Plaintiff-appellant V. New York Telephone Company, Defendant-appellee ; Grassroots Action Inc. & John B. O'Sullivan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated-plaintiffs-appellants, V. New York Telephone Company, Defendant-appellee Book in PDF, ePub and Kindle

Appellants, the City of New York, Grassroots Action Inc., and John B. O'Sullivan, initiated suit against the New York Telephone Company in the district court on February 8 and 10, 1972, asserting violation of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970,1 as amended in 1971,2 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against an increase in the Company's New York intrastate rates approved by the New York State Public Service Commission on January 17, 1972, which were then under active review by the Price Commission. Despite allegations of failure to comply with the Price Commission's procedural regulations,3 the district court, 339 F. Supp. 198, on March 1, 1972, dismissed both complaints holding that appellants were required to submit their contentions initially to the Price Commission. This appellants did not do. On March 30, 1972, the Price Commission gave final approval to the Company's rate increase. 4 The instant appeals raised two questions. First, were appellants required to make their submission in the first instance to the Price Commission? Second, did the Company comply with the Commission's procedural regulations? Resolving the initial question adversely to appellants, we pretermit consideration of the latter, and accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.


The People's Telephone Company Et Al., Appellants, Vs. the American Bell Telephone Company Et Al., Appellees, the Overland Telephone Company Et Al., Appellants, Vs. the American Bell Telephone Company Et Al., Appellees

The People's Telephone Company Et Al., Appellants, Vs. the American Bell Telephone Company Et Al., Appellees, the Overland Telephone Company Et Al., Appellants, Vs. the American Bell Telephone Company Et Al., Appellees
Author:
Publisher:
Total Pages: 124
Release: 1887*
Genre: Telephone
ISBN:

Download The People's Telephone Company Et Al., Appellants, Vs. the American Bell Telephone Company Et Al., Appellees, the Overland Telephone Company Et Al., Appellants, Vs. the American Bell Telephone Company Et Al., Appellees Book in PDF, ePub and Kindle


The City of New York, Plaintiff, Against The New York Telephone Company, Defendant ; Grassroots Action, Inc. and John B. O'Sullivan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, Against New York Telephone Company, Defendant

The City of New York, Plaintiff, Against The New York Telephone Company, Defendant ; Grassroots Action, Inc. and John B. O'Sullivan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, Against New York Telephone Company, Defendant
Author: United States. District Court (New York : Southern District)
Publisher:
Total Pages:
Release: 1972
Genre: New York (N.Y.)
ISBN:

Download The City of New York, Plaintiff, Against The New York Telephone Company, Defendant ; Grassroots Action, Inc. and John B. O'Sullivan, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, Against New York Telephone Company, Defendant Book in PDF, ePub and Kindle

Appellants, the City of New York, Grassroots Action Inc., and John B. O'Sullivan, initiated suit against the New York Telephone Company in the district court on February 8 and 10, 1972, asserting violation of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970,1 as amended in 1971,2 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against an increase in the Company's New York intrastate rates approved by the New York State Public Service Commission on January 17, 1972, which were then under active review by the Price Commission. Despite allegations of failure to comply with the Price Commission's procedural regulations,3 the district court, 339 F. Supp. 198, on March 1, 1972, dismissed both complaints holding that appellants were required to submit their contentions initially to the Price Commission. This appellants did not do. On March 30, 1972, the Price Commission gave final approval to the Company's rate increase. 4 The instant appeals raised two questions. First, were appellants required to make their submission in the first instance to the Price Commission? Second, did the Company comply with the Commission's procedural regulations? Resolving the initial question adversely to appellants, we pretermit consideration of the latter, and accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.