§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Morris Builders, LP, et al., Respondents,v.Empire Zone Designation Board et al., Appellants.

Brief

35 Cited authorities

  1. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R. A. Gray Co.

    467 U.S. 717 (1984)   Cited 759 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that retroactive aspects of legislation must satisfy due process, a burden "met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose"

  2. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.

    428 U.S. 1 (1976)   Cited 927 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that black lung compensation scheme satisfied due process because it was a "rational measure to spread the costs of the employee's disabilities to those who have profited from the fruits of their labor"

  3. United States v. Carlton

    512 U.S. 26 (1994)   Cited 181 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding no violation of due process where retroactive application of a legislative amendment is "rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose"

  4. United States v. Darusmont

    449 U.S. 292 (1981)   Cited 109 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the permissible period of retroactivity for federal taxation statutes "has been confined to short and limited periods required by the practicalities of producing national legislation."

  5. Welch v. Henry

    305 U.S. 134 (1938)   Cited 343 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Upholding Wisconsin law providing for retroactive application of graduated tax on dividends

  6. Long v. State

    2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5231 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 112 times
    In Long v State of New York, 7 NY3d 269, 276 (2006), the Court of Appeals dismissed an unjust conviction claim because it was verified by counsel, not personally by the claimant, citing subdivision 4 and also quoting the 1984 Report of the Law Revision Commission that a claim "must be personally verified."

  7. In the Matter of Gleason

    96 N.Y.2d 117 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 125 times
    Noting that the Legislature conveyed "a sense of immediacy," by, among other things, "direct[ing] that the amendment was to take effect immediately"

  8. North v. Board of Examiners

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 5781 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 92 times
    In Matter of North v Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of N.Y. (8 N.Y.3d 745, 753 [2007]), the Court of Appeals articulated that, in order to be a registerable offense in New York, "the 'essential elements' provision in SORA requires registration whenever an individual is convicted of criminal conduct in a foreign jurisdiction that, if committed in New York, would have amounted to a registerable New York offense."

  9. Grace v. New York State Tax Commission

    37 N.Y.2d 193 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 191 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Argued May 1, 1975 Decided June 12, 1975 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Francis V. Dow, Ruth Kessler Toch and Vincent P. Molineaux of counsel), for appellant. Walter J. Rockler for respondent. Chief Judge BREITEL. In an article 78 (CPLR) proceeding, the State Tax Commission appeals from a judgment, denominated an order, of the Appellate Division modifying its determination. The commission had determined

  10. Matter of Duell v. Condon

    84 N.Y.2d 773 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 106 times
    In Duell, the landlord argued that the underlying eviction proceeding fell outside the scope of Real Property Law § 234 because the proceeding was based on the tenant's failure to occupy the premises as a primary residence, a requirement mandated by law, not by the terms of the lease.

  11. Section 11.9 - Revocation of certification

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 5 § 11.9   Cited 15 times

    (a) The commissioner may revoke the certification of a business enterprise upon a finding of any one of the following: (1) the business enterprise made material misrepresentations of fact on its application for certification or on a business annual report, or the business enterprise failed to disclose facts in its application for certification that would constitute grounds for not issuing a certification; (2) the business enterprise has failed to construct, expand, rehabilitate, invest in or operate

  12. Section 14.2 - Notice of appeal

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 5 § 14.2   Cited 7 times

    (a) A business enterprise that received a notice of revocation of certification in accordance with section 11.9(c) of this Title may send a written notice to the Empire Zone Designation Board appealing the revocation of certification by no later than 15 business days from the date of the notice of revocation of certification. Failure by a business enterprise to appeal the commissioner's revocation of certification within the aforementioned 15 business day period will be deemed a waiver of the business