How cited: Cluster 7334253 · Go Syfert

Cluster 7334253

green · 24 citation events across 1 courts. Showing the 8 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 8
green DoorDash, Inc. v. City Of New York (2025)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Although the employers served as intermediaries, “they ha[d] no discretion as to the recipient of their employees’ donations,” and their “act of sending a check to an employee’s designated non-profit recipient” was a “mere ministerial act, not speech.” Id. at 212 (quotation marks omitted). 9 The City also argues that, unlike in Sorrell, customers have a contractual relationship with the restaurants from which they order based on the New York Uniform Commercial Code.
quotation marks omitted
green DoorDash, Inc. v. City Of New York (2024)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Although the employers served as intermediaries, “they ha[d] no discretion as to the recipient of their employees’ donations,” and their “act of sending a check to an employee’s designated non-profit recipient” was a “mere ministerial act, not speech.” Id. at 212 (quotation marks omitted). 9 The City also argues that, unlike in Sorrell, customers have a contractual relationship with the restaurants from which they order based on the New York Uniform Commercial Code.
quotation marks omitted
green Portier, LLC v. City of New York (2024)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Although the employers served as intermediaries, “they ha[d] no discretion as to the recipient of their employees’ donations,” and their “act of sending a check to an employee’s designated non-profit recipient” was a “mere ministerial act, not speech.” Id. at 212 (quotation marks omitted). 9 The City also argues that, unlike in Sorrell, customers have a contractual relationship with the restaurants from which they order based on the New York Uniform Commercial Code.
quotation marks omitted
green Grubhub Inc. v. City of New York (2024)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Although the employers served as intermediaries, “they ha[d] no discretion as to the recipient of their employees’ donations,” and their “act of sending a check to an employee’s designated non-profit recipient” was a “mere ministerial act, not speech.” Id. at 212 (quotation marks omitted). 9 The City also argues that, unlike in Sorrell, customers have a contractual relationship with the restaurants from which they order based on the New York Uniform Commercial Code.
quotation marks omitted
green RHC Operating LLC v. City Of New York (2022)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y. · 2 citations in this opinion
Ctr. v. City of New York, 360 F. Supp. 3d 192, 237 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
green Lee v. Saul (2022)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Ctr. v. City of New York, 360 F. Supp. 3d 192, 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) and Bowman v. New York State Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, No. 18-cv-11596 (ER), 2020 WL 1233701 , at *9 (S.D.N.Y.
green Bowman v. New York State Housing and Community Renewal (NYS HCR) (2020)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Law Ctr. v. City of New York, 360 F. Supp. 3d 192, 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass’n v. Interlake S. S. Co., 370 U.S. 173 (1962)).
citing Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass’n v. Interlake S. S. Co., 370 U.S. 173 (1962)
green OConner v. Agilant Solutions, Inc. (2020)
Rule Authority · S.D.N.Y.
Law Ctr. v. City of N.Y., 360 F. Supp. 3d 192, 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).