§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Prometheus Realty Corp., et al., Respondents,v.New York City Water Board, et al., Appellants.

Brief

8 Cited authorities

  1. Heller v. Doe

    509 U.S. 312 (1993)   Cited 2,340 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts must accept a legislature's generalizations under rational basis review "even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends" or where the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety"

  2. Dandridge v. Williams

    397 U.S. 471 (1970)   Cited 2,811 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an appellate court can affirm district court on alternate grounds supported by the record

  3. Consolation Nursing Home, Inc. v. Commissioner of New York State Department of Health

    85 N.Y.2d 326 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 107 times
    In Matter of Consolation Nursing Home v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Health (85 N.Y.2d 326, 332), the Court of Appeals stated that "Although documented studies often provide support for an agency's rule making, such studies are not the sine qua non of a rational determination * * * 'the commissioner, of course, is not confined to factual data alone but also may apply broader judgmental considerations based upon the expertise and experience of the agency he heads' (see, Matter of Catholic Med. Ctr. v. Department of Health, 48 N.Y.2d 967, 968-969)."

  4. City of Chicago v. Shalala

    189 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that "the Court's analysis in Diaz makes clear that, for purposes of equal protection analysis, Congress' interest in regulating the relationship between our alien visitors and the national government ought not to be defined in such narrow terms as to preclude application of the rational basis test in a case . . . involving eligibility for government benefits"

  5. Food Vendors v. Vendor Panel

    90 N.Y.2d 402 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 27 times
    Upholding rule restricting vending on 26 new streets not previously regulated

  6. Elmwood-Utica v. Sewer Auth

    65 N.Y.2d 489 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 37 times
    Observing that Legislature had conferred virtually unfettered power upon the local sewer authority to establish sewer rents, and under these circumstances, it was clear that Legislature intended that sewer authority "would fix sewer rents that, in its judgment, would best serve its economic and public policy goals, including economic differentiations among its charges so long as there is not involved any of the invidious discrimination condemned by statute or Constitution, or some utterly arbitrary discrimination not related to economic considerations or some accepted public goal"

  7. Matter of Village of Scarsdale v. Jorling

    695 N.E.2d 1113 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 15 times

    May 7, 1998 Joel R. Dichter, for appellant-respondent. Marguerite R. Weiss, for intervenor-appellant-respondent. John Hogrogian, for respondent-appellant. Gordon J. Johnson, for respondent. CIPARICK, J.: The instant appeal pits the New York City Water Board (Water Board) against the Village of Scarsdale (Village) and the County of Westchester (County), with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in the middle. At issue is which governmental entity has the authority, pursuant

  8. Carey v. Triborough Auth

    38 N.Y.2d 545 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 20 times
    Subjecting the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's rate classifications to rational basis review