Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Acme Circus Operating Co., 12 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961). · Go Syfert
Search
Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. v. Acme Circus Operating Co., 12 A.D.2d 895 (N.Y. App. Div. 1961). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rodrigues v. City of New York (nyappdiv, 1993-09-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Rodrigues v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
(Schanbarger v Kellogg, 35 AD2d 902 , mot to dismiss appeal granted 29 NY2d 649 , cert denied 405 US 919 ; see also, Manceri v City of New York, 12 AD2d 895 .) Thus, with respect to State law claims, there is some authority for conferring an immunity upon prosecutors somewhat broader than that to which they are entitled under Federal law.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc.
v.
Acme Circus Operating Company, Inc., Doing Business as Clyde Beatty-Cole Bros. Circus
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 2, 1961.
12 A.D.2d 895
Published

Order, entered on October 26, 1960, vacating defendants’ notice of examination before trial and granting plaintiff priority of examination, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Settle order on notice fixing date for examination to proceed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Bastow, JJ.