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 4 courts 1980–2000 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Leggett
green
2 sentences1982(The Court of Appeals concluded that an order excluding the public and the press from a pretrial competency hearing in a criminal case in which the accused was charged with rape constituted error.) Indeed, Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Leggett (supra) expressly reformulates the New York law of the right of access of the public and the press to all judicial proceedings, civil and criminal, and prescribes procedural standards for judicial evaluation of opposition to the presumptive openness of all judicial proceedings. 1980In Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Leggett ( 48 NY2d 430 , supra), which involved the closure of a pretrial competency hearing, the New York Court of Appeals clarified its holding in De Pasquale (supra). | 3 | 1980–1982 |
People v. Hudy
red
1 sentence2000Furthermore, in accordance with People v Hudy (supra), defense counsel will have a full and fair opportunity at trial to cross-examine the victim and the investigators concerning any alleged attempt to influence the victim’s testimony, as well as any nefarious motives underlying the allegations. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Francabandera
green
1 sentence1983— Case held, decision reserved, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for a hearing in accordance with the following memorandum: If the only basis for defendant’s motion for a pretrial competency hearing had been defendant’s claimed amnesia, the posttrial hearing which was held would have been sufficient to establish that defendant had not been deprived of a fair trial (see People v Francabandera, 33 NY2d 429 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.