STERN

v.

TEEVAL CO., INC.; NEW YORK V. TEEVAL CO., INC.; AND TEEVAL CO., INC. V. STERN

Citator

Cited By

• L. W. Foster Sportswear Co., Inc. v. Goldblatt Bros., Inc., 356 F.2d 906 (7th Cir. 1966)
  …ts] of writing,” and interest should have been allowed on the damages awarded by the jury based on the difference between the contract price and the market price. National Dairymen Ass’n v. Dean Milk Co., 183 F. 2d 349, 355 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 876, 71 S.Ct. 122, 95 L.Ed. 637 (1950); Murray v. Doud & Co., 167 Ill. 368, 375, 47 N.E. 717, 719 (1897); Barker-Lubin Co. v. Wanous, 26 Ill.App.2d 151, 167 N.E. 2d 797 (4th Dist. 1960) (Abstract of Decision) . Here, as under Count I, all claims would h…
• In re Berry Ests., Inc. v. State OF NEW York, 812 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1987)
  ….Y.1968). Federal and State courts have held that limitation on rents is not a taking of property. Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503, 517, 64 S.Ct. 641, 648, 88 L.Ed. 892 (1944); Teeval Co. v. Stern, 301 N.Y. 346, 362, 93 N.E. 2d 884, cert. denied, 340 U.S. 876, 71 S.Ct. 122, 95 L.Ed. 637 (1950). The New York Court of [*69] Appeals has characterized rental as an instrument of oppression, which may be regulated in the public good. People ex rel. Durham, supra, 230 N.Y. at 451-52, 130 N.E. 601. Because rent…