§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Sierra Club, et al., Appellants,v.Village of Painted Post, et al., Respondents.

Brief

26 Cited authorities

  1. Society of Plastics v. Suffolk

    77 N.Y.2d 761 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 958 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Society of Plastics Indus. v. County of Suffolk, 77 N.Y.2d 761, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034 (1991), this Court examined the law of standing, and set forth a framework for deciding whether parties have standing to challenge governmental action in land use matters generally, and under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art. 8 [SEQRA]), specifically.

  2. Tarrant Reg'l Water Dist. v. Herrmann

    569 U.S. 614 (2013)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that because many compacts unambiguously permit signatory States to cross each other's borders to fulfill obligations under the compact, the absence of such a provision in the Red River Compact "strongly suggests that the cross-border rights were never intended to be part of the States' agreement"

  3. In re Dreikausen v. Zoning Bd. Appeals

    98 N.Y.2d 165 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 122 times
    In Dreikausen and Citineighbors, the petitioners did not seek a TRO or a preliminary injunction when they filed their article 78 proceeding.

  4. Matter of Merson v. McNally

    90 N.Y.2d 742 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 115 times

    Argued September 10, 1997 Decided October 30, 1997 APPEAL, in the first above-entitled proceeding, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered May 13, 1996, which (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court (Judith A. Hillery, J.), entered in Putnam County in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, dismissing a petition which sought to annul a negative declaration determination of the

  5. Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. City of West Palm Beach

    266 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 97 times
    Holding laws having the “effect of managing or governing rail transportation” preempted, “while permitting the continued application of laws having a more remote or incidental effect on rail transportation.”

  6. N.Y. Susquehanna v. Jackson

    500 F.3d 238 (3d Cir. 2007)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that ICCTA does not pre-empt state regulation where the regulation does not unreasonably burden rail operations and does not discriminate against railroads

  7. Hi Tech Trans, LLC v. New Jersey

    382 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 78 times
    Holding that there was no preemption because no agency relationship existed and the transloading agreement "essentially eliminates [the railroad's] involvement in, and responsibility for, the operation of Hi Tech's facility."

  8. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 75 times

    13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley

  9. Telaro v. Telaro

    25 N.Y.2d 433 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 121 times

    Argued October 28, 1969 Decided December 4, 1969 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, FREDERICK BACKER, J. Leonard C. Shalleck, Irving I. Erdheim and Milton P. Falk for appellant. Morris H. Halpern and Abraham J. Heller for respondent. BREITEL, J. This appeal involves an action by a wife to recover, inter alia, one half of some $24,800 withdrawn by her husband, defendant-respondent, from a brokerage account held at that time in the names of both

  10. Altshuler Shaham Provident Funds, Ltd. v. GML Tower, LLC

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4273 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 21 times
    In Altshuler, the Court of Appeals considered whether a subordination penalty applies to funds loaned in a building loan contract for financing the purchase of the property on which the improvements are to be made.

  11. Section 10101 - Rail transportation policy

    49 U.S.C. § 10101   Cited 785 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Articulating objective of "promot[ing] a safe and efficient rail transportation system by allowing rail carriers to earn adequate revenues"

  12. Section 617.2 - Definitions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.2   Cited 416 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining “negative declaration” as a “written determination by a lead agency that the implementation of [an] action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts”

  13. Section 617.4 - Type I actions

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.4   Cited 142 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) The purpose of the list of Type I actions in this section is to identify, for agencies, project sponsors and the public, those actions and projects that are more likely to require the preparation of an EIS than Unlisted actions. All agencies are subject to this Type I list. (1) This Type I list is not exhaustive of those actions that an agency determines may have a significant adverse impact on the environment and requires the preparation of an EIS. However, the fact that an action or project

  14. Section 1806.22 - Standards for consumptive uses of water

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 21 § 1806.22

    (a) The project sponsors of all consumptive water uses subject to review and approval under section 1806.4, 1806.5 or 1806.6 of this Part shall comply with this section. (b) Mitigation. All project sponsors whose consumptive use of water is subject to review and approval under section 1806.4, 1806.5 or 1806.6 of this Part shall mitigate such consumptive use. Except to the extent that the project involves the diversion of the waters out of the basin, public water supplies shall be exempt from the