Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Holtzman v. Goldmangreen2 sentences2026Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, although the nonappealability of an order may be considered as a factor in favor of prohibition as part of the second step of the two-tiered analysis, "nonreviewability by way of appeal alone, does not provide a basis for reviewing error by collateral proceeding in the nature . . . of prohibition" ( Matter of State of New York v King , 36 NY2d at 63 ; see Matter of Holtzman v Goldman , 71 NY2d at 570 ). 2006“Although the distinction between legal errors and actions in excess of power is not always easily made, abuses of power may be identified by their impact upon the entire proceeding as distinguished from an error in a proceeding itself proper” (Matter of Holtzman v Goldman, 71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988] [citations omitted and emphasis added]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Lainggreen1 sentence1992However, inasmuch as the court’s ruling merely constitutes an error of law and not, as urged by petitioner, an act in excess of the court’s powers, the extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie and nonreviewability by way of appeal, alone, does not provide a basis for reviewing error by a collateral proceeding in the nature of a writ of prohibition (Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59 ; Matter of Johnson v Andrews, 179 AD2d 417 ; see also, People v Laing, 79 NY2d 166 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MATTER OF STATE OF NY v. King
green
2 sentences2026Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, although the nonappealability of an order may be considered as a factor in favor of prohibition as part of the second step of the two-tiered analysis, "nonreviewability by way of appeal alone, does not provide a basis for reviewing error by collateral proceeding in the nature . . . of prohibition" ( Matter of State of New York v King , 36 NY2d at 63 ; see Matter of Holtzman v Goldman , 71 NY2d at 570 ). 2006If, and only if, the court has exceeded its authorized powers, does it become relevant whether another available remedy exists; that is, “nonreviewability by way of ap peal alone, does not provide a basis for reviewing error by collateral proceeding in the nature either of prohibition or mandamus” (Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d at 63 ). | 4 | 1992–2026 |
Johnson v. Andrews
green
1 sentence1992However, inasmuch as the court’s ruling merely constitutes an error of law and not, as urged by petitioner, an act in excess of the court’s powers, the extraordinary remedy of prohibition does not lie and nonreviewability by way of appeal, alone, does not provide a basis for reviewing error by a collateral proceeding in the nature of a writ of prohibition (Matter of State of New York v King, 36 NY2d 59 ; Matter of Johnson v Andrews, 179 AD2d 417 ; see also, People v Laing, 79 NY2d 166 ). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Steingut v. Gold
green
1 sentence1979(Matter of Steingut v Gold, 42 NY2d 311, 315 .) Even "constitutional issues involving errors of substantive or procedural law are not cognizable by way of prohibition”. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.