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 1886–1979 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Doyle
green
2 sentences1959Long regarded as a safeguard of civil liberty it was firmly imbedded in the law of England and by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution became a basic principle of American constitutional law. ‘ It is a barrier interposed between the individual and the power of the govern ment, a barrier interposed by the sovereign people of the State; and neither legislators nor judges are free to overleap it.’ (Matter of Doyle, 257 N. Y. 244, 250 .) • Applying this basic principle to our present problem we have no doubt that when the appellant, as a witness upon the inquiry at the Special Term, dec 1940Long regarded as a safeguard of civil liberty it was firmly imbedded in the law of England and by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution became a basic principle of American constitutional law. “ It is- a barrier interposed between the individual and the power of the government, a barrier interposed by the sovereign people of the State; and neither legislators nor judges are free to overleap it.” (Matter of Doyle, 257 N. Y. 244, 250 .) Applying this basic principle to our present problem we have no doubt that when the appellant, as a witness upon the inquiry at the Special Term, decli | 2 | 1940–1959 |
Proskin v. County Court of Albany County
green
1 sentence1979Even the courts are without power to permit disclosure of Grand Jury evidence in some cases (see Matter of Proskin v County Ct. of Albany County, 30 NY2d 15 ). . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Matter of Kaffenburgh
yellow
1 sentence1959As was said by Presiding Justice Lazansky in Matter of Ellis ( 253 App. Div. 558, 572 ), expressing the minority view at the Appellate Division: ‘ The constitutional privilege is a fundamental right and a measure of duty; its exercise cannot be a breach of duty to the court.’ ” In Matter of Kaffenburgh ( 188 N. Y. 49, 53 ) the Court of Appeals quoted with approval the following language from People ex rel. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Ranno v. Ranno
neutral
1 sentence1956This is not to be regarded as a direction that defendant appear personally as a witness upon the inquiry (Ranno v. Ranno, 283 App. Div. 1076 ). | 1 | 1956–1956 |
The People v. . McMahon
neutral
1 sentence1886In People v. McMahon ( 15 N. Y. 384 ), the defendant was arrested by a constable,' without warrant, on a charge of having murdered his wife. | 1 | 1886–1886 |