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 3 courts 1968–1998 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Callahangreen1 sentence1998In each case, the sweep of the waiver of the right to appeal encompassed all appealable issues of the case, including those relating to the sentence, except as to those claims which important public policy concerns *736 dictate survive a bargained-for waiver (see, People v Allen, supra, at 763; People v Callahan, supra, at 281; People v Karim, supra, at 806; People v Smith, supra, at 201). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Allengreen1 sentence1998In each case, the sweep of the waiver of the right to appeal encompassed all appealable issues of the case, including those relating to the sentence, except as to those claims which important public policy concerns *736 dictate survive a bargained-for waiver (see, People v Allen, supra, at 763; People v Callahan, supra, at 281; People v Karim, supra, at 806; People v Smith, supra, at 201). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen1 sentence1998In each case, the sweep of the waiver of the right to appeal encompassed all appealable issues of the case, including those relating to the sentence, except as to those claims which important public policy concerns *736 dictate survive a bargained-for waiver (see, People v Allen, supra, at 763; People v Callahan, supra, at 281; People v Karim, supra, at 806; People v Smith, supra, at 201). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Karimgreen1 sentence1998In each case, the sweep of the waiver of the right to appeal encompassed all appealable issues of the case, including those relating to the sentence, except as to those claims which important public policy concerns *736 dictate survive a bargained-for waiver (see, People v Allen, supra, at 763; People v Callahan, supra, at 281; People v Karim, supra, at 806; People v Smith, supra, at 201). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence1996(See, People v Williams, 81 AD2d 418, 424 , supra.) While appellate interpretation of what constitutes testimony about the "same transaction” — and hence the sweep of the immunity conferred — is sparse, it appears that the Court of Appeals has read the term generously. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Mcfarlan
neutral
1 sentence1996(See, People v Williams, 56 NY2d 916 , supra; People v McFarlan, 42 NY2d 896 .) In Williams the Court of Appeals adopted the analysis and reasoning of the Appellate Division, which began by reiterating the unassailable principle that the immunity conferred on the witness by his Grand Jury testimony had to be " 'coterminous with what otherwise would have been the [Fifth Amendment] privilege of the person concerned’ ”. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence1996(See, People v Williams, 56 NY2d 916 , supra; People v McFarlan, 42 NY2d 896 .) In Williams the Court of Appeals adopted the analysis and reasoning of the Appellate Division, which began by reiterating the unassailable principle that the immunity conferred on the witness by his Grand Jury testimony had to be " 'coterminous with what otherwise would have been the [Fifth Amendment] privilege of the person concerned’ ”. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Draisma v. United States
green
1 sentence1981In another post -Liepelt case, Draisma v United States ( 492 F Supp 1317 ) an action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (US Code, tit 28, § 2671 et seq.) the court held that Liepelt (supra) was not controlling in a case where the calculation of damages proceeds pursuant to State law. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Liepelt
green
1 sentence1981In another post -Liepelt case, Draisma v United States ( 492 F Supp 1317 ) an action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (US Code, tit 28, § 2671 et seq.) the court held that Liepelt (supra) was not controlling in a case where the calculation of damages proceeds pursuant to State law. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Coleman v. New York City Transit Authority
green
1 sentence1981If there ever was any doubt about the sweep of the rule as to the exclusion of taxes enunciated in Coleman (37 NY2d 137 , supra), the Sullivan case has dispelled it. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Amalgamated Housing Corp. v. Luxenberg
neutral
1 sentence1980(Matter of Robinson v Stitchman, 18 AD2d 449 ; Silfin v Rose, 17 Misc 2d 243 ; Amalgamated Housing Corp. v Luxenberg, 8 Misc 2d 831 .) However, “While the sweep of this privilege is broad, * * * the concept of immunity should be carefully examined in view of the expanding potential for obtaining personal jurisdiction by service outside New York. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Silfin v. Rose
green
1 sentence1980(Matter of Robinson v Stitchman, 18 AD2d 449 ; Silfin v Rose, 17 Misc 2d 243 ; Amalgamated Housing Corp. v Luxenberg, 8 Misc 2d 831 .) However, “While the sweep of this privilege is broad, * * * the concept of immunity should be carefully examined in view of the expanding potential for obtaining personal jurisdiction by service outside New York. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Robinson v. Stichman
neutral
1 sentence1980(Matter of Robinson v Stitchman, 18 AD2d 449 ; Silfin v Rose, 17 Misc 2d 243 ; Amalgamated Housing Corp. v Luxenberg, 8 Misc 2d 831 .) However, “While the sweep of this privilege is broad, * * * the concept of immunity should be carefully examined in view of the expanding potential for obtaining personal jurisdiction by service outside New York. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Fikes v. Alabama
green
1 sentence1968“If his confession was not ‘the product of a rational intellect and a free will,’ his confession is inadmissible because coerced.” (Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 307 .) A de novo hearing is mandated wherein the totality of the circumstances, including evidence as to preconfession warnings and as. to access to family, shall be weighed “against the power of resistance of the person confessing.” (Stein v. New York, 346 U. S. 156, 185 ; Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U. S. 191, 197 ; People v. Conilio, 23 N Y 2d 701.) Concur—Eager, J. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Stein v. New York
red
1 sentence1968“If his confession was not ‘the product of a rational intellect and a free will,’ his confession is inadmissible because coerced.” (Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 307 .) A de novo hearing is mandated wherein the totality of the circumstances, including evidence as to preconfession warnings and as. to access to family, shall be weighed “against the power of resistance of the person confessing.” (Stein v. New York, 346 U. S. 156, 185 ; Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U. S. 191, 197 ; People v. Conilio, 23 N Y 2d 701.) Concur—Eager, J. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Townsend v. Sain
red
1 sentence1968“If his confession was not ‘the product of a rational intellect and a free will,’ his confession is inadmissible because coerced.” (Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 307 .) A de novo hearing is mandated wherein the totality of the circumstances, including evidence as to preconfession warnings and as. to access to family, shall be weighed “against the power of resistance of the person confessing.” (Stein v. New York, 346 U. S. 156, 185 ; Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U. S. 191, 197 ; People v. Conilio, 23 N Y 2d 701.) Concur—Eager, J. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.