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.
34 New York opinions name it 7 courts 1830–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chmelovsky v. Country Club Homes, Inc.green2 sentences2025Thus, "[w]here a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019 [a] is not the proper procedural mechanism to be employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015 [a]" ( Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc., 111 AD3d 874, 875 [2d Dept 2013]). 2025Thus, "[w]here a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019 [a] is not the proper procedural mechanism to be employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015 [a]" ( Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc., 111 AD3d 874, 875 [2d Dept 2013]). | 6 | 7 |
Johnson v. Societe Generale S.A.green2 sentences2019"Where a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019(a) is not the proper procedural mechanism to be employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)"' ( Matter of Pulte Homes of N.Y., LLC v Planning Bd. of Town of Carmel , 136 AD3d at 644 , quoting Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc. , 111 AD3d 874, 875 ; see Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY at 326 ; Johnson v Societe Generale S.A. , 94 AD3d at 664; Goldberger v Eisner , 90 AD3d 835, 836 ; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Co 2016“Where a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019 (a) is not the proper procedural mechanism to be employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a)” (Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc., 111 AD3d 874, 875 [2013]; see Johnson v Societe Generale S.A., 94 AD3d 663, 664 [2012]; Goldberger v Eisner, 90 AD3d 835, 836 [2011]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. | 4 | 4 |
Herpe v. . Herpegreen2 sentences2024Trial courts have no revisory or appellate authority to correct by amendments any errors of substance in prior orders or judgments" ( Sokoloff v Schor , 176 AD3d 120 , 132; see Herpe v Herpe , 225 NY 323, 326 ). "'Where a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019(a) is not the proper procedural mechanism to be [*2]employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)"' ( Sokoloff v Schor , 176 AD3d at 132-133, quoting Matter of Pulte Homes of N.Y., LLC v Pl 2019"Where a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019(a) is not the proper procedural mechanism to be employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)"' ( Matter of Pulte Homes of N.Y., LLC v Planning Bd. of Town of Carmel , 136 AD3d at 644 , quoting Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc. , 111 AD3d 874, 875 ; see Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY at 326 ; Johnson v Societe Generale S.A. , 94 AD3d at 664; Goldberger v Eisner , 90 AD3d 835, 836 ; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Co | 3 | 8 |
Tagliaferri v. Weilergreen2 sentences2021Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the mistake in defendant's notice of appeal does not render the notice of appeal ineffective, but is a mere clerical error that in no way confused or prejudiced plaintiff and shall be disregarded ( Matter of Tagliaferri v Weiler , 1 NY3d 605, 606 [2004]; CPLR 2001). 2021Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the mistake in defendant's notice of appeal does not render the notice of appeal ineffective, but is a mere clerical error that in no way confused or prejudiced plaintiff and shall be disregarded ( Matter of Tagliaferri v Weiler , 1 NY3d 605, 606 [2004]; CPLR 2001). | 2 | 2 |
Mount Sinai Hospital v. Country Wide Insurancegreen2 sentences2019Co. , 81 AD3d 700, 701 ). 2016Co., 81 AD3d 700, 701 [2011]). | 1 | 4 |
Matter of Pulte Homes of N.Y., LLC v. Planning Bd. of Town of Carmelgreen2 sentences2024Trial courts have no revisory or appellate authority to correct by amendments any errors of substance in prior orders or judgments" ( Sokoloff v Schor , 176 AD3d 120 , 132; see Herpe v Herpe , 225 NY 323, 326 ). "'Where a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019(a) is not the proper procedural mechanism to be [*2]employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)"' ( Sokoloff v Schor , 176 AD3d at 132-133, quoting Matter of Pulte Homes of N.Y., LLC v Pl 2019"Where a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019(a) is not the proper procedural mechanism to be employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)"' ( Matter of Pulte Homes of N.Y., LLC v Planning Bd. of Town of Carmel , 136 AD3d at 644 , quoting Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc. , 111 AD3d 874, 875 ; see Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY at 326 ; Johnson v Societe Generale S.A. , 94 AD3d at 664; Goldberger v Eisner , 90 AD3d 835, 836 ; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Co | 1 | 2 |
Goldberger v. Eisnergreen2 sentences2019"Where a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019(a) is not the proper procedural mechanism to be employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)"' ( Matter of Pulte Homes of N.Y., LLC v Planning Bd. of Town of Carmel , 136 AD3d at 644 , quoting Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc. , 111 AD3d 874, 875 ; see Herpe v Herpe, 225 NY at 326 ; Johnson v Societe Generale S.A. , 94 AD3d at 664; Goldberger v Eisner , 90 AD3d 835, 836 ; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Co 2016“Where a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019 (a) is not the proper procedural mechanism to be employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a)” (Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc., 111 AD3d 874, 875 [2013]; see Johnson v Societe Generale S.A., 94 AD3d 663, 664 [2012]; Goldberger v Eisner, 90 AD3d 835, 836 [2011]; Mount Sinai Hosp. v Country Wide Ins. | 1 | 2 |
MATTER OF E. 56TH PLAZA, INC. v. New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd.green1 sentence2006“The fact that the landlord may not have intended the proposed lease ... to constitute a binding offer is immaterial because the statute requires that the offer be binding” ( 123 W. 15 , LLC v Compton, 4 Misc 3d 138[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50938[U] , *1 [App Term, 1st Dept 2004], quoting Matter of East 56th Plaza v New York City Conciliation & Appeals Bd., 56 NY2d 544, 546 [1982]). | 1 | 1 |
Russo v. Selskygreen1 sentence2003While a mere clerical mistake which does not affect the accuracy of the test results will not demand reversal (see Matter of Muniz v Selsky, 274 AD2d 796, 797 [2000]; Matter of Russo v Selsky, 249 AD2d 738, 739 [1998]), there is no proof that this was a mere clerical error. | 1 | 1 |
Jimenez v. Goordgreen1 sentence2003Contrary to respondent’s argument, there is no preservation question here (compare Matter of Jimenez v Goord, 264 AD2d 918, 919 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
Muniz v. Selskygreen1 sentence2003While a mere clerical mistake which does not affect the accuracy of the test results will not demand reversal (see Matter of Muniz v Selsky, 274 AD2d 796, 797 [2000]; Matter of Russo v Selsky, 249 AD2d 738, 739 [1998]), there is no proof that this was a mere clerical error. | 1 | 1 |
Dusch v. Duschgreen1 sentence1974(Cf. Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N. Y. 323 ; see Dusch v. Dusch, 257 App. Div. 909 ; Stock v. Mann, 255 N. Y. 100 .) Furthermore, upon careful examination of the record we find that any compensation awarded the Receiver for all services rendered by him in any capacity herein beyond the sum of $41,280.98 would be excessive. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stevens v. . Rouse
neutral
2 sentences1933Ct. Act, § 20, subd. 6.) “ Other sufficient cause ” has been construed to mean “ causes of like nature with those specifically named.” (Matter of Tilden, 98 N. Y. 434, 442 .) The power exists where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. Cowie, 49 App. Div. 612 ; Matter of Earle, 74 id. 458; Matter of Scrimgeour, 80 id. 388; affd., 175 N. Y. 507 ; Matter 1927The powers conferred by this subdivision must be exercised only in a like case, and in the same manner, as a court of record and of general jurisdiction exercises the same powers.” Under the provisions of this section the surrogate no doubt has power to modify an order of the character here involved in cases where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. | 3 | 1927–1941 |
In re the Accounting of Robertson
neutral
2 sentences1933Ct. Act, § 20, subd. 6.) “ Other sufficient cause ” has been construed to mean “ causes of like nature with those specifically named.” (Matter of Tilden, 98 N. Y. 434, 442 .) The power exists where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. Cowie, 49 App. Div. 612 ; Matter of Earle, 74 id. 458; Matter of Scrimgeour, 80 id. 388; affd., 175 N. Y. 507 ; Matter 1927The powers conferred by this subdivision must be exercised only in a like case, and in the same manner, as a court of record and of general jurisdiction exercises the same powers.” Under the provisions of this section the surrogate no doubt has power to modify an order of the character here involved in cases where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. | 3 | 1927–1941 |
In Re the Accounting of Wanninger
neutral
2 sentences1933Ct. Act, § 20, subd. 6.) “ Other sufficient cause ” has been construed to mean “ causes of like nature with those specifically named.” (Matter of Tilden, 98 N. Y. 434, 442 .) The power exists where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. Cowie, 49 App. Div. 612 ; Matter of Earle, 74 id. 458; Matter of Scrimgeour, 80 id. 388; affd., 175 N. Y. 507 ; Matter 1927The powers conferred by this subdivision must be exercised only in a like case, and in the same manner, as a court of record and of general jurisdiction exercises the same powers.” Under the provisions of this section the surrogate no doubt has power to modify an order of the character here involved in cases where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. | 2 | 1927–1933 |
People Ex Rel. Dubey v. . Swanstrom
neutral
2 sentences1933Ct. Act, § 20, subd. 6.) “ Other sufficient cause ” has been construed to mean “ causes of like nature with those specifically named.” (Matter of Tilden, 98 N. Y. 434, 442 .) The power exists where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. Cowie, 49 App. Div. 612 ; Matter of Earle, 74 id. 458; Matter of Scrimgeour, 80 id. 388; affd., 175 N. Y. 507 ; Matter 1927The powers conferred by this subdivision must be exercised only in a like case, and in the same manner, as a court of record and of general jurisdiction exercises the same powers.” Under the provisions of this section the surrogate no doubt has power to modify an order of the character here involved in cases where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. | 2 | 1927–1933 |
In Re the Appraisal of the Estate of Scrimgeour
green
2 sentences1933Ct. Act, § 20, subd. 6.) “ Other sufficient cause ” has been construed to mean “ causes of like nature with those specifically named.” (Matter of Tilden, 98 N. Y. 434, 442 .) The power exists where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. Cowie, 49 App. Div. 612 ; Matter of Earle, 74 id. 458; Matter of Scrimgeour, 80 id. 388; affd., 175 N. Y. 507 ; Matter 1927The powers conferred by this subdivision must be exercised only in a like case, and in the same manner, as a court of record and of general jurisdiction exercises the same powers.” Under the provisions of this section the surrogate no doubt has power to modify an order of the character here involved in cases where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. | 2 | 1927–1933 |
Morgan v. Cowie
green
2 sentences1933Ct. Act, § 20, subd. 6.) “ Other sufficient cause ” has been construed to mean “ causes of like nature with those specifically named.” (Matter of Tilden, 98 N. Y. 434, 442 .) The power exists where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. Cowie, 49 App. Div. 612 ; Matter of Earle, 74 id. 458; Matter of Scrimgeour, 80 id. 388; affd., 175 N. Y. 507 ; Matter 1927The powers conferred by this subdivision must be exercised only in a like case, and in the same manner, as a court of record and of general jurisdiction exercises the same powers.” Under the provisions of this section the surrogate no doubt has power to modify an order of the character here involved in cases where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. | 2 | 1927–1933 |
In re Silliman
green
2 sentences1933Ct. Act, § 20, subd. 6.) “ Other sufficient cause ” has been construed to mean “ causes of like nature with those specifically named.” (Matter of Tilden, 98 N. Y. 434, 442 .) The power exists where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. Cowie, 49 App. Div. 612 ; Matter of Earle, 74 id. 458; Matter of Scrimgeour, 80 id. 388; affd., 175 N. Y. 507 ; Matter 1927The powers conferred by this subdivision must be exercised only in a like case, and in the same manner, as a court of record and of general jurisdiction exercises the same powers.” Under the provisions of this section the surrogate no doubt has power to modify an order of the character here involved in cases where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. | 2 | 1927–1933 |
In re the Appraisal of the Estate of Willets
neutral
2 sentences1933Ct. Act, § 20, subd. 6.) “ Other sufficient cause ” has been construed to mean “ causes of like nature with those specifically named.” (Matter of Tilden, 98 N. Y. 434, 442 .) The power exists where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. Cowie, 49 App. Div. 612 ; Matter of Earle, 74 id. 458; Matter of Scrimgeour, 80 id. 388; affd., 175 N. Y. 507 ; Matter 1927The powers conferred by this subdivision must be exercised only in a like case, and in the same manner, as a court of record and of general jurisdiction exercises the same powers.” Under the provisions of this section the surrogate no doubt has power to modify an order of the character here involved in cases where jurisdiction has been mistakenly assumed (Matter of Silliman, 79 App. Div. 98 ; affd., 175 N. Y. 513 ); or to correct a mere clerical error (Matter of Robertson, 51 App. Div. 117 ; affd., 165 N. Y. 675 ; Matter of Henderson, 157 id. 423); or an inadvertent mistake of fact (Morgan v. | 2 | 1927–1933 |
Davar v. Cardwell
neutral
2 sentences1885In Davar v. Cardwell ( 27 Ind. 478 ), the form of the certificate was “ acknowledged it,” and it was held that “it” meant the deed. 1885In Davar v. Cardwell ( 27 Ind., 478 ) the form of the certificate was “ acknowledge it; ” it was held that “ it ” meant the deed. | 2 | 1885–1885 |
Scharfenburg v. Bishop
green
2 sentences1885The numerous authorities, cited by one of the learned counsel for the appellant, established this rule of the courts. * In Scharfenburg v. Bishop ( 35 Iowa, 60 ), the word “appear” was omitted, and it was held obviously a mere clerical error. 1885In Scharfenburg v. Bishop ( 35 Iowa, 60 ) the word “ appear ” was omitted, and it was held obviously a mere clerical error. | 2 | 1885–1885 |
People Ex Rel. Chamberlain v. Forrest
green
2 sentences2014Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, based at least in part on due process concerns (see id. at 548-549 ), determined to shield the taxpayer from the unfavorable consequences that would flow from a determination that the error was merely clerical in nature. 2014Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, based at least in part on due process concerns ( see id. at 548-549 ), determined to shield the taxpayer from the unfavorable consequences that would flow from a determination that the error was merely clerical in nature. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In re the Claim of Newkirk
green
1 sentence2006Claimant’s assertion that the mistake was a mere clerical error she made without any intention of deceiving the employer presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Newkirk [Commissioner of Labor], 15 AD3d 827 [2005]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Gaier v. Cohen
neutral
1 sentence1998The amendment upon remittitur to vacate the findings of fact regarding the slowdown cannot be viewed as a correction of a mere clerical error as it clearly affected a substantive aspect of the dispute between the parties (see, Saleh v Karp, supra; Fudin v Fudin, supra). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Raisig v. Young
neutral
1 sentence1998The amendment upon remittitur to vacate the findings of fact regarding the slowdown cannot be viewed as a correction of a mere clerical error as it clearly affected a substantive aspect of the dispute between the parties (see, Saleh v Karp, supra; Fudin v Fudin, supra). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People ex rel. Dell v. Walker
neutral
1 sentence1998Dell v Walker, 186 AD2d 1043 , lv denied 81 NY2d 702 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Stock v. Mann
green
1 sentence1974(Cf. Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N. Y. 323 ; see Dusch v. Dusch, 257 App. Div. 909 ; Stock v. Mann, 255 N. Y. 100 .) Furthermore, upon careful examination of the record we find that any compensation awarded the Receiver for all services rendered by him in any capacity herein beyond the sum of $41,280.98 would be excessive. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Empire Produce Co. v. Allen
neutral
1 sentence1967(Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N. Y. 323 ; Empire Produce Co. v. Allen, 225 App. Div. 6 ; Lane v. Merit Enterprises, 4 Misc 2d 137 ; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 63:158.) In essence, the trustee seeks to vacate the final order for the purpose of assessing the allowance and including it in a new final order. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Lane v. Merit Enterprises, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1967(Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N. Y. 323 ; Empire Produce Co. v. Allen, 225 App. Div. 6 ; Lane v. Merit Enterprises, 4 Misc 2d 137 ; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, New York Practice, § 63:158.) In essence, the trustee seeks to vacate the final order for the purpose of assessing the allowance and including it in a new final order. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| In Re the Several Accountings of the Executors of Tilden green | 1 | 1933–1933 |
| Gilmore v. Hirschman neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Stannard v. . Hubbell green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Bullard v. . Sherwood green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| In re Scott neutral | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| In Re the Transfer Tax Upon the Estate of Scott neutral | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| Burstein v. Levy neutral | 1 | 1910–1910 |
| King v. Mail & Express Co. neutral | 1 | 1910–1910 |
| Kenney v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad neutral | 1 | 1906–1906 |
| McLean v. Horn neutral | 1 | 1905–1905 |
| Weed v. . the People neutral | 1 | 1872–1872 |
| Kimball v. Huntinton neutral | 1 | 1837–1837 |
| Browder v. McArthur green | 1 | 1830–1830 |
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.