§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of County of Monroe, Appellant,v.Nirav R. Shah,, et al., Respondents.

Brief

9 Cited authorities

  1. Dandridge v. Williams

    397 U.S. 471 (1970)   Cited 2,809 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an appellate court can affirm district court on alternate grounds supported by the record

  2. 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"

  3. Nebbia v. New York

    291 U.S. 502 (1934)   Cited 1,467 times
    Holding that due process is not violated if the challenged law has "a reasonable relation to a proper legislative purpose" and is "neither arbitrary nor discriminatory"

  4. 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"

  5. Matter of Hodes v. Axelrod

    70 N.Y.2d 364 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that the application of an amended statute permitting the revocation of a nursing home operating certificate based on an operator's industry-related felony convictions does not impair the operator's vested rights, even though the operator had successfully litigated the automatic revocation under the preexisting law

  6. Affronti v. Crosson

    95 N.Y.2d 713 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 59 times
    Taking judicial notice of document taken from public records

  7. Alliance of American Insurers v. Chu

    77 N.Y.2d 573 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that insurance companies had a due process interest in the statutorily created Property and Liability Insurance Security Fund, funded through insurer contributions and used to satisfy claims in the event of an insurer's insolvency

  8. Cnty. of Niagara v. Daines

    91 A.D.3d 1288 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 10 times

    2012-01-31 In the Matter of COUNTY OF NIAGARA, Petitioner–Respondent, v. Richard F. DAINES, Commissioner, New York State Department of Health and New York State Department of Health, Respondents–Appellants. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Victor Paladino of Counsel), for Respondents–Appellants. Whiteman Osterman & Hanna LLP, Albany (Christopher E. Buckey of Counsel), and Nancy Rose Stormer, P.C., Utica, for Petitioner–Respondent. PRESENT: SCUDDER Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General

  9. Matter of Chrysler Props. v. Morris

    23 N.Y.2d 515 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 32 times
    Discussing vested rights doctrine as it applied to an amendment of the Tax Law which expressly authorized the City of New York to obtain judicial review of New York State Tax Commission determinations which were unreviewable on the date the enactment was amended; court held statute as applied to those final determinations was unconstitutional