manifest error in New York

2009(See Holy Trinity Church v United States, 143 US 457 [1892]; Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F2d 487 [2d Cir 1960].) The meaning of a word such as “or” may be construed in other than its plain and ordinary sense so as to correct a mistake and to meet constitutional muster.

1983On the basis of this evidence, the court cannot conclude that the trial court should have treated Moriah’s statements either as indicators of potential actual bias constitutionally requiring further investigation under Aldridge and Ham (supra), or as triggers of a manifest presumption of bias perhaps constitutionally warranting further inquiry under Jackson and De Vita.

1983Nor can the trial court be said to have violated constitutional due process rights derived from statutory procedural requirements — the articulated basis for the decision in Ham (supra), that the trial court should have permitted the defendant to question potential jurors.

1965The County Court confirmed the determination of the commisisoners, using the following language: ‘ ‘ The court cannot vacate the decision of the commissioners except for a manifest error of law (Matter of Burdick, 27 Misc. 298 ; Matter of Town of Whitestone [sic], 24 Misc. 150 ).

1965The County Court confirmed the determination of the commisisoners, using the following language: ‘ ‘ The court cannot vacate the decision of the commissioners except for a manifest error of law (Matter of Burdick, 27 Misc. 298 ; Matter of Town of Whitestone [sic], 24 Misc. 150 ).

1961(Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N. Y. 325 ; Furman v. Furman, 153 N. Y. 309 .) Despite the obvious error which was induced by the submission of papers by defendant, he resists restitution.

1961(Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N. Y. 325 ; Furman v. Furman, 153 N. Y. 309 .) Despite the obvious error which was induced by the submission of papers by defendant, he resists restitution.

1944In Matter of Rindone v. Kern ( 282 N. Y. 214 ), the court held that the provisionals should be permitted to retain their positions until the special examination was had and the candidates rated.

1944In Matter of Staples v. Kern ( 282 N. Y. 205 ), the Court of Appeals held that the present petitioners and those similarly situated, all of whom were provisional employees of the Emergency Relief Bureau, had been improperly denied an opportunity to participate in an examination for the position of messenger-attendants and that the Municipal Civil Service Commission, acting under a provision of its rules permitting it to correct a manifest error, had properly directed a special supplementary examination to be given for the benefit of pro visionals who had failed to receive proper notice of the

1932(Cf. People v. Sutherland, 207 N. Y. 22 ; People v. Journal Co., 213 N. Y. 1 .) We may, hardly, presume that the Legislature intended to give conclusive effect to a manifest error in computation, even where there never has been room for possible dispute.

1932(Cf. People v. Sutherland, 207 N. Y. 22 ; People v. Journal Co., 213 N. Y. 1 .) We may, hardly, presume that the Legislature intended to give conclusive effect to a manifest error in computation, even where there never has been room for possible dispute.

1931(Cluff v. Day, 141 N. Y. 580, 582 .) Ordinarily a court may not treat a question as res nova which it had theretofore decided (Leavitt v. Blatchford, 17 N. Y. 521 ), but it was there stated to be the duty of the court “ freely to examine its own decisions ” and to correct error by overruling a prior decision (Leavitt v. Blatchford, supra, 533 ; Rumsey v. New York & New England R.

1931(Cluff v. Day, 141 N. Y. 580, 582 .) Ordinarily a court may not treat a question as res nova which it had theretofore decided (Leavitt v. Blatchford, 17 N. Y. 521 ), but it was there stated to be the duty of the court “ freely to examine its own decisions ” and to correct error by overruling a prior decision (Leavitt v. Blatchford, supra, 533 ; Rumsey v. New York & New England R.

1931(Cluff v. Day, 141 N. Y. 580, 582 .) Ordinarily a court may not treat a question as res nova which it had theretofore decided (Leavitt v. Blatchford, 17 N. Y. 521 ), but it was there stated to be the duty of the court “ freely to examine its own decisions ” and to correct error by overruling a prior decision (Leavitt v. Blatchford, supra, 533 ; Rumsey v. New York & New England R.

1931Co., 133 N. Y. 79, 85 .) In a court of last resort it may be held controlling, though there “ a manifest error in its former judgment ” may be corrected.

1914(Matter of Brook Avenue, 8 App. Div. 294 .) The really' serious objection which the appellants raise to the assessment is, that under the provisions of the charter, properly construed, their land is not liable to assessment for prospective damages to buildings not taken.

1912Heinemann v. Herd, 62 N. Y. 448 .

1906(Gearty v. Mayor, etc., of New York, 183 N. Y. 233 .) "The objectionable testimony Was received under a ruling of the court which in effect instructed the'jury'that it was proper evidence, for them to. consider in determining' the issues.