Schnepel v. Board of Education
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Berkey v. Downing (New York Supreme Court 1972)
- Schulz v. Cobleskill-Richmondville Central School District Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Glass v. Department of Health (New York Supreme Court 1970)
- Di Sano v. Storandt (New York Supreme Court 1964)
- Schulz v. Rush-Henrietta Central School District (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- Weimer v. Board of Education (N.Y. 1981)
- Ofenloch v. Gaynor (New York Supreme Court 1970)
- Marmo v. New York City Board of Education (New York Supreme Court 1968)
- Van Allen v. McCleary (New York Supreme Court 1961)
- Rumble v. Board of Education (New York Supreme Court 1961)
- Walters v. Great Neck Real Estate Board, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1959)
- Queens Village Civic Organization v. Board of Education (New York Supreme Court 1958)
- Baer v. Kolmorgen (New York Supreme Court 1958)
- Kuhn v. Commissioner of Education (New York Supreme Court 1955)
- Chelnik v. Wagner (New York Supreme Court 1955)
- Ross v. Wilson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1954)
- Heydeman v. County of Rockland (New York Supreme Court 1954)
- Corbett v. Union Free School District No. 21 (New York Supreme Court 1951)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Section 51 of the General Municipal Law authorizes actions by taxpayers against illegal acts of £< all officers, agents, commissioners and other persons acting, or who have acted, for and on behalf of any county, town, village or municipal corporation in this state ”. Section 2 of the same statute defines a “ municipal corporation ” as including ££ only a county, town, city and village.”
A board of education is not a municipal corporation within the meaning of the above provisions (see Hamilton v. Baker,
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Loughban, Oh. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Dye, Fuld and and Froessel, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.