Cockcroft v. . Mitchell, 130 N.E. 921 (NY 1921). · Go Syfert
Search
Cockcroft v. . Mitchell, 130 N.E. 921 (NY 1921). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss (ca2, 2002-05-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1924 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1924 1975 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss
2d Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. (citing People v. Atlas, 183 A.D. 595, 597 , 170 N.Y.S. 834 (1st Dep’t 1918), aff'd, 230 N.Y. 629 , 130 N.E. 921 (mem.) (1921) (noting that “kosher” in the then-existing kosher fraud laws was used “evidently in the ordinary sense in which it is used in the trade, which is to designate meat as having been prepared under ... the orthodox Hebrew requirements”), and State v. Glassman, 109 Misc.2d 1088, 1090 , 441 N.Y.S.2d 346, 348 (County Ct.1981) (“The issue in this case is whether the defendants ‘with intent to defraud’ represented that their frankfurters and salami were …
discussed Cited "see" Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Weiss
2d Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. (citing People v. Atlas, 183 A.D. 595, 597 , 170 N.Y.S. 834 (1st Dep't 1918), aff'd, 230 N.Y. 629 , 130 N.E. 921 (mem.) (1921) (noting that "kosher" in the then-existing kosher fraud laws was used "evidently in the ordinary sense in which it is used in the trade, which is to designate meat as having been prepared under ... the orthodox Hebrew requirements"), and State v. Glassman, 109 Misc.2d 1088, 1090 , 441 N.Y.S.2d 346, 348 (County Ct.1981) ("The issue in this case is whether the defendants `with intent to defraud' represented that their frankfurters and salami were Kosher when in f…
discussed Cited "see" Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats, Inc. v. Rubin
E.D.N.Y · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commack, 986 F.Supp. at 154 (citing Hygrade, 266 U.S. at 501, 45 S.Ct. 141 ) (“The purpose of the statute manifestly, is to prevent and punish fraud ....”) (quoting People v. Atlas, 183 A.D. 595, 596-97 , 170 N.Y.S. 834 (1st Dept.1918), aff'd without opinion, 230 N.Y. 629 , 130 N.E. 921 (1921)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats v. Rubin
E.D.N.Y · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U.S. 497, 501 , 45 S.Ct. 141, 142 , 69 L.Ed. 402 (1925) (“‘The purpose of the statute, manifestly, is to prevent and punish fraud____’”) (quoting People v. Atlas, 183 A.D. 595, 596-97 , 170 N.Y.S. 834 (1st Dept.1918), aff'd without opinion, 230 N.Y. 629 , 130 N.E. 921 (1921)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sarah T. Cockcroft, Individually and as Executrix of John
v.
Cockcroft, Deceased, Appellant, v. John Mitchell Et Al., Composing the Industrial Commission of the Department of Labor of the State of New York, Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 1, 1921.
130 N.E. 921
W.H.L. Edwards and Harold R. Medina for appellant. Frederick H. Cunningham for respondents.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.