power to grant privilege (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

power to grant privilege in New York

6 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1907–2011 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
People Ex Rel. Schwab v. . Grant green
ny · 1891
2 sentences

2011The requirement that a person must secure leave from some one to entitle him to exercise a right, carries with it, by natural implication, a discretion on the part of the other to refuse to grant it, if, in his judgment, it is improper or unwise to give the required consent." Schwab , 81 Sickels at 481 .

1907Schwab v. Grant ( 126 N. Y. 473 ) the court say (p. 481) “ A power to grant a privilege to one is inconsistent with the possession on the part of another of an absolute light to exercise such privilege.

21907–2011
Consolidated Edison Co. v. Town of Rye neutral
nysupct · 1959
2 sentences

1961A comprehensive zoning ordinance should contain a provision giving the Board of Zoning Appeals the power to grant an exception for the building of necessary public utility structures in restricted districts (cf. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Town of Rye, 16 Misc 2d 284 ).

1959A comprehensive zoning ordinance should contain a provision giving the Board of Zoning Appeals the power to grant an exception for the building of necessary public utility structures in restricted districts (cf. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Town of Rye, 16 Misc 2d 284 ).

21959–1961
Uniformed Sanitation Men Association, Inc. v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York green
ca2 · 1970
1 sentence

1971The Commissioner contends that “use” immunity is involved by virtue of the threat of job forfeiture (Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 ), even though the Commissioner does not have the power to grant immunity (Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn. v. Commissioner of Sanitation, 426 F. 2d 619 ).

11971–1971
Garrity v. New Jersey green
scotus · 1967
1 sentence

1971The Commissioner contends that “use” immunity is involved by virtue of the threat of job forfeiture (Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U. S. 493 ), even though the Commissioner does not have the power to grant immunity (Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn. v. Commissioner of Sanitation, 426 F. 2d 619 ).

11971–1971
In re Barresi neutral
nyappdiv · 1922
1 sentence

1959Cumisky v. Wurster, 14 App. Div. 556, 561 ; Matter of Barresi v. Biggs, 203 App. Div. 2, 4-5 .) In addition to the general proposition that power to grant a license necessarily implies power to withhold it for good cause, a further source of discretionary power implicitly delegated to the Commissioner is to be found in the general licensing provisions of the City Charter and the Administrative Code.

11959–1959
People ex rel. Cumisky v. Wurster neutral
nyappdiv · 1897
1 sentence

1959Cumisky v. Wurster, 14 App. Div. 556, 561 ; Matter of Barresi v. Biggs, 203 App. Div. 2, 4-5 .) In addition to the general proposition that power to grant a license necessarily implies power to withhold it for good cause, a further source of discretionary power implicitly delegated to the Commissioner is to be found in the general licensing provisions of the City Charter and the Administrative Code.

11959–1959
State ex rel. Chapman v. State Board of Medical Examiners green
minn · 1885
1 sentence

1907The requirement that a person must "secure leave from some one to entitle him to exercise a right, carries with it by natural implication, a discretion on the part of the other to refuse to grant it, if, in his judgment, it is improper or unwise to give the required consent.” In State v. State Board of Medical Examiners ( 34 Minn. 387 , 26 N. W.

11907–1907

Where else courts name it

TX 8 (1991–2023) PA 6 (1973–1986) NY 6 (1907–2011) CA 4 (1974–2019) UT 3 (1967–1988) MA 3 (1937–1996) IA 2 (1933–2019) DC 2 (1992–1996) RI 2 (1963–1967) MD 2 (1972–1983) WI 2 (1978–2012) MI 2 (1921–1966) OK 2 (1969–1983)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check