115 New York opinions name it 11 courts 1856–2026 18 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nalty v. Konggreen2 sentences2015This authority, however, in no way diminishes the court’s primary responsibil *836 ity to ensure that an award of custody is predicated on the child’s best interests, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Roldan v Nieves, 51 AD3d 803, 805 [2008]), after a full and comprehensive hearing and a careful analysis of all relevant factors (see Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]). 2014An award of custody must be based upon the best interests of the child, and neither parent has a prima facie right to custody of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2010]). “ ‘Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests’ ” (Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d 1054 , 1054 [2013], quoting Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 | 11 | 11 |
Middlemiss v. Prattgreen2 sentences2015It is well settled “that modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” (Matter of Damian D. [Patricia WW.], 126 AD3d 12, 16 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Whiteford v Jones, 104 AD3d 995, 996 [2013], Iv dismissed 21 NY3d 974 [2013]; Matter of Middlemiss v Pratt, 86 AD3d at 659 ). 2015In this regard, there is no question that modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires “a full and comprehensive hearing” at which a parent is to be afforded “a full and fair opportunity to be heard” (Matter of Middlemiss v Pratt, 86 AD3d 658, 659 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Jeffrey JJ. v Stephanie KK., 88 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2011]). | 7 | 9 |
Eschbach v. Eschbachgreen2 sentences1993Inasmuch as no prima facie right to custody exists in favor of either parent (see, Domestic Relations Law §§ 70, 240), the court is obliged to conduct a comprehensive hearing and to carefully consider all relevant factors in rendering its decision; the court’s determination, made after such a hearing, is entitled to great weight and should not lightly be set aside (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 171-174). 1992Inasmuch as neither parent has a prima facie right to custody (see, Domestic Relations Law §§ 70, 240; Family Ct Act §§ 651, 652; Bluemke v Bluemke, 155 AD2d 574, 575 ), the court must conduct a comprehensive hearing and carefully consider all applicable factors in determining the child’s best interests under the prevailing conditions (see, Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 171-174; Lenczycki v Lenczycki, 152 AD2d 621, 622 ). | 7 | 9 |
Jeffrey JJ. v. Stephanie KK.green2 sentences2018"Generally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody and visitation order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard" ( Matter of Edmunds v Fortune , 156 AD3d 880, 881 ; see Matter of Buck v Buck, 154 AD3d 1134 ; Matter of Izquierdo v Santiago, 151 AD3d 967, 968 ; Matter of Jeffrey JJ. v Stephanie KK. , 88 AD3d 1083, 1084 ) . 2017Generally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody and visitation order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard (see Matter of Buck v Buck, 154 AD3d 1134 [2017]; Matter of Schroll v Wright, 135 AD3d 1028 [2016]; Matter of Jeffrey JJ. v Stephanie KK., 88 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2011]). | 6 | 7 |
Obey v. Deglinggreen2 sentences2013“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]; see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770 [1975]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d at 753-754 ; Audubon v Audubon, 138 AD2d 658, 658-659 [1988]). 2013“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]; see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770 [1975]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d at 753-754 ; Audubon v Audubon, 138 AD2d 658, 658-659 [1988]). | 5 | 7 |
S.L. v. J.R.green2 sentences2026The court's authority to proceed by default "in no way diminishes the court's primary responsibility to ensure that an award of custody is predicated on the child's best interests, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, after a full and comprehensive hearing and a careful analysis of all relevant factors" ( Matter of Sims v Boykin , 130 AD3d 835, 835-836 [citation omitted]; see S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d 558, 563 ; Matter of Riera v Ayabaca , 235 AD3d 643 , 644-645). 2024"This authority, however, in no way diminishes the court's primary responsibility to ensure that an award of custody is predicated on the child's best interests, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, after a full and comprehensive hearing and a careful analysis of all relevant factors" ( Matter of Sims v Boykin , 130 AD3d at 835-836 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Trammell v Gorham , 218 AD3d at 781 ). "[C]ustody determinations should generally be made only after a full and plenary hearing and inquiry" ( S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d 558, 563 [alternations and internal quotation m | 4 | 6 |
Matter of Sims v. Boykingreen2 sentences2026The court's authority to proceed by default "in no way diminishes the court's primary responsibility to ensure that an award of custody is predicated on the child's best interests, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, after a full and comprehensive hearing and a careful analysis of all relevant factors" ( Matter of Sims v Boykin , 130 AD3d 835, 835-836 [citation omitted]; see S.L. v J.R. , 27 NY3d 558, 563 ; Matter of Riera v Ayabaca , 235 AD3d 643 , 644-645). 2025In addition, the court's authority to proceed by default "in no way diminishes the court's primary responsibility to ensure that an award of custody is predicated on the child's best interests, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, after a full and comprehensive hearing and a careful analysis of all relevant factors" ( Matter of Sims v Boykin , 130 AD3d 835, 835-836 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Meehan v Kittle , 229 AD3d at 554; Matter of Trammell v Gorham , 218 AD3d 780, 781 ). | 4 | 5 |
Stukes v. Ryangreen2 sentences2020Additionally, "modification of custody determinations requires a full and comprehensive hearing with the parties given the opportunity to present in open court evidence as to the best interest[s] of the child" ( Matter of Stukes v Ryan , 289 AD2d at 624 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted]). 2011“In a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6 seeking modification of a prior custody order, a full and comprehensive hearing is required” (Matter of Middlemiss v Pratt, 86 AD3d 658, 659 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Stukes v Ryan, 289 AD2d 623, 624 [2001]). | 4 | 4 |
Zaratzian v. Abadirgreen2 sentences2014An award of custody must be based upon the best interests of the child, and neither parent has a prima facie right to custody of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2010]). “ ‘Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests’ ” (Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d 1054 , 1054 [2013], quoting Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 2014An award of custody must be based upon the best interests of the child, and neither parent has a prima facie right to custody of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2010]). “ ‘Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests’ ” (Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d 1054 , 1054 [2013], quoting Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 | 4 | 4 |
James v. Hickeygreen2 sentences2014“However, ‘a hearing will not be necessary where the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the child’s best interest’ ” (Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d at 1054, quoting Matter of Horn v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536, 536 [2004]). 2014“However, ‘a hearing will not be necessary where the court possesses adequate relevant information to enable it to make an informed and provident determination as to the child’s best interest’ ” (Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d at 1054, quoting Matter of Horn v Zullo, 6 AD3d 536, 536 [2004]). | 4 | 4 |
Audubon v. Audubongreen2 sentences2013“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]; see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770 [1975]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d at 753-754 ; Audubon v Audubon, 138 AD2d 658, 658-659 [1988]). 2013“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]; see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768, 769-770 [1975]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d at 753-754 ; Audubon v Audubon, 138 AD2d 658, 658-659 [1988]). | 4 | 4 |
Matter of Buck v. Buckgreen2 sentences2022"While not every petition in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding is automatically entitled to a hearing" ( Matter of Pollock v Wakefield , 145 AD3d 1274, 1274 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]), "[g]enerally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard" ( Matter of Buck v Buck , 154 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Miller v Bush , 141 AD3 2021"While not every petition in a Family Ct Act article 6 proceeding is automatically entitled to a hearing" ( Matter of Pollock v Wakefield , 145 AD3d 1274, 1274-1275 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), "[g]enerally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard" ( Matter of Buck v Buck , 154 AD3d 1134, 1135 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Miller v Bush , 141 AD3d 7 | 3 | 5 |
Matter of Richardson v. Masseygreen2 sentences2017Generally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, “modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” (Matter of Richardson v Massey, 127 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Schroll v Wright, 135 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2016]). 2016It is settled that “modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” (Matter of Damian D. [Patricia WW.], 126 AD3d 12, 16 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Richardson v Massey, 127 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2015]; see Matter of McCullough v Harris, 119 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; Matter of Moore v Palmatier, 115 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2014]), except where “no hearing is requested and the court has sufficient information to undertake a comprehensive in | 3 | 3 |
Savoca v. Bellofattogreen2 sentences2016“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests” (Matter of Savoca v Bellofatto, 104 AD3d 695, 696 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2013“Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child[ren]’s best interests” (Matter of Savoca v Bellofatto, 104 AD3d 695, 696 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d 1054 [2013]; Matter of Swinson v Brewington, 84 AD3d 1251, 1253 [2011]). | 3 | 3 |
Matter of Damian D.green2 sentences2016It is settled that “modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” (Matter of Damian D. [Patricia WW.], 126 AD3d 12, 16 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Richardson v Massey, 127 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2015]; see Matter of McCullough v Harris, 119 AD3d 992, 993 [2014]; Matter of Moore v Palmatier, 115 AD3d 1069, 1070 [2014]), except where “no hearing is requested and the court has sufficient information to undertake a comprehensive in 2016The mother now appeals. “[TJhere is no question that modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” (Matter of Damian D. [Patricia WW.], 126 AD3d 12, 16 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Matter of Schroll v Wright, 135 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2016]; Matter of Richardson v Massey, 127 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2015]; Matter of Whiteford v Jones, 104 AD3d 995, 996 [2013], lv dismissed 21 NY3d 974 [2013]; Matter of Jeffrey JJ. v Stephanie KK., 88 AD3d 1083, 10 | 3 | 3 |
Roldan v. Nievesgreen2 sentences2015This authority, however, in no way diminishes the court’s primary responsibil *836 ity to ensure that an award of custody is predicated on the child’s best interests, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances (see Matter of Roldan v Nieves, 51 AD3d 803, 805 [2008]), after a full and comprehensive hearing and a careful analysis of all relevant factors (see Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 [2009]). 2013A court deciding an initial petition for child custody must consider “the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, (1) which alternative will best promote stability; (2) the available home environments; (3) the past performance of each parent; (4) each parent’s relative fitness, including his or her ability to guide the child, provide for the child’s overall well being, and foster the child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent; and (5) the child’s desires” (Matter of Supangkat v Torres, 101 AD3d 889, 890 [2012]; see Matter of Blakeney v Blakeney, 99 AD3d 898, 898 [2 | 3 | 3 |
In re Telsa Z.green2 sentences2013In a proceeding to modify a prior custody order pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, due process requires a comprehensive hearing that affords each parent a “ ‘full and fair opportunity to be heard’ ” (Matter of Middlemiss v Pratt, 86 AD3d 658, 659 [2011], quoting Matter of Telsa Z. [Denise Z.], 84 AD3d 1599, 1600 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 708 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). 2013In a proceeding to modify a prior custody order pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, due process requires a comprehensive hearing that affords each parent a “ ‘full and fair opportunity to be heard’ ” (Matter of Middlemiss v Pratt, 86 AD3d 658, 659 [2011], quoting Matter of Telsa Z. [Denise Z.], 84 AD3d 1599, 1600 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 708 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). | 3 | 3 |
Peek v. Peekgreen2 sentences2014An award of custody must be based upon the best interests of the child, and neither parent has a prima facie right to custody of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2010]). “ ‘Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests’ ” (Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d 1054 , 1054 [2013], quoting Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 2014An award of custody must be based upon the best interests of the child, and neither parent has a prima facie right to custody of the child (see Domestic Relations Law § 70 [a]; Matter of Peek v Peek, 79 AD3d 753, 753-754 [2010]). “ ‘Generally, the determination of a custody issue can only be resolved after a full and comprehensive hearing, and a careful analysis of the applicable factors to be considered in determining what custody arrangement will further the child’s best interests’ ” (Matter of Zaratzian v Abadir, 105 AD3d 1054 , 1054 [2013], quoting Matter of Nalty v Kong, 59 AD3d 723, 724 | 2 | 6 |
Matter of Trammell v. Gorhamgreen2 sentences2025In addition, the court's authority to proceed by default "in no way diminishes the court's primary responsibility to ensure that an award of custody is predicated on the child's best interests, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, after a full and comprehensive hearing and a careful analysis of all relevant factors" ( Matter of Sims v Boykin , 130 AD3d 835, 835-836 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Meehan v Kittle , 229 AD3d at 554; Matter of Trammell v Gorham , 218 AD3d 780, 781 ). 2024In addition, the court's authority to proceed by default "'in no way diminishes the court's primary responsibility to ensure that an award of custody is predicated on the child's best interests, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, after a full and comprehensive hearing and a careful analysis of all relevant factors'" ( Matter of Trammell v Gorham , 218 AD3d at 781 , quoting Matter of Sims v Boykin , 130 AD3d 835, 835-836 ; see Matter of Lemon v Faison , 150 AD3d at 1005 ). | 2 | 3 |
Matter of Schroll v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2017Generally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, “modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard” (Matter of Richardson v Massey, 127 AD3d 1277, 1278 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Matter of Schroll v Wright, 135 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2016]). 2017Generally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody and visitation order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard (see Matter of Buck v Buck, 154 AD3d 1134 [2017]; Matter of Schroll v Wright, 135 AD3d 1028 [2016]; Matter of Jeffrey JJ. v Stephanie KK., 88 AD3d 1083, 1084 [2011]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Newballgreen2 sentences2016Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the identification of defendant in this case cannot be said to have the same assurances of reliability that were found to exist in Wharton that would justify the summary denial of a hearing pursuant to CPL 710.60 (see People v Newball, 76 NY2d 587, 592 [1990]). 2016Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the identification of defendant in this case cannot be said to have the same assurances of reliability that were found to exist in Wharton that would justify the summary denial of a hearing pursuant to CPL 710.60 (see People v Newball, 76 NY2d 587, 592 [1990]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Gordongreen2 sentences2016“Comprehensive analysis, not superficial categorization, ultimately governs” (People v Gordon, 76 NY2d 595, 601 [1990]). 2016“Comprehensive analysis, not superficial categorization, ultimately governs” (People v Gordon, 76 NY2d 595, 601 [1990]). | 2 | 3 |
Zupo v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2008“Pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, ‘[mjodification of custody determinations requires a full and comprehensive hearing’ ” (Matter of Stukes v Ryan, 289 AD2d 623, 624 [2001]; see generally Matter of Zupo v Edwards, 161 AD2d 972 [1990]). 2001Pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, “[m] edification of custody determinations requires a full and comprehensive hearing” (Matter of Zupo v Edwards, 161 AD2d 972 ) with the parties given the opportunity to present in open court evidence as to the best interest of the child (see, Matter of Damien X., 217 AD2d 762, 763-764 ; Matter of Gant v Higgins, 203 AD2d 23 ). | 2 | 3 |
| Condit v. Dunnegreen | 2 | 2 |
| Matter of Sarah OO. v. Charles OO.green | 2 | 2 |
| Matter of Miller v. Bushgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Matter of Pollock v. Wakefieldgreen | 2 | 2 |
| New York Institute of Legal Research v. New York State Board on Electric Generation Siting & the Environmentgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Whiteford v. Jonesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Craig v. Williams-Craiggreen | 2 | 2 |
| Swinson v. Brewingtongreen | 2 | 2 |
| Sullivan v. Mooregreen | 2 | 2 |
| Blakeney v. Blakeneygreen | 2 | 2 |
| Supangkat v. Torresgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Berrouet v. Greavesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Gurewich v. Gurewichgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Anwar v. Sanigreen | 2 | 2 |
| Grady v. Grellergreen | 2 | 2 |
| Dunkley v. Dillongreen | 2 | 2 |
| Alix A. v. Erika H.green | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Griffith
green
2 sentences1976(Cf. United States v. Griffith, 334 U. S. 100 , 107 et seq.) Therefore, * * * we are reluctant to foreclose the plaintiff from an opportunity of factually demonstrating illegality in a comprehensive rule of reason inquiry (see, e.g., Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 163, 179 ; Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States, 246 U. S. 231, 238-239 ), especially since there will, in any event, be a trial on the merits of the first cause of action. 1976(Cf. United States v. Griffith , 334 U. S. 100 , 107 et seq. ) Therefore, * * * we are reluctant to foreclose the plaintiff from an opportunity of factually demonstrating illegality in a comprehensive rule of reason inquiry (see, e.g., Standard Oil Co. v. United States , 283 U. S. 163, 179 ; Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States , 246 U. S. 231, 238-239 ), especially since there will, in any event, be a trial on the merits of the first cause of action. | 5 | 1971–1976 |
Diffley v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences1985Before the issue of custody is determined, a full and comprehensive hearing should be held (Corso v Corso, 48 AD2d 652 ; Romi v Hamdan, 70 AD2d 934 ) so that the court can fulfill its duty to make “an enlightened, objective and independent evaluation of the circumstances” (Matter of Ehrlich v Ressner, 55 AD2d 953, 954 ). 1985In light of the serious and conflicting allegations of the parties against each other, which even the examining psychiatrist was unable to reconcile, it was error not to conduct a full and comprehensive hearing to resolve the many factual issues raised (see, Romi v Hamdan, supra; Corso v Corso, supra). | 4 | 1976–1985 |
Board of Trade of Chicago v. United States
green
2 sentences1976(Cf. United States v. Griffith, 334 U. S. 100 , 107 et seq.) Therefore, * * * we are reluctant to foreclose the plaintiff from an opportunity of factually demonstrating illegality in a comprehensive rule of reason inquiry (see, e.g., Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 163, 179 ; Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States, 246 U. S. 231, 238-239 ), especially since there will, in any event, be a trial on the merits of the first cause of action. 1976(Cf. United States v. Griffith , 334 U. S. 100 , 107 et seq. ) Therefore, * * * we are reluctant to foreclose the plaintiff from an opportunity of factually demonstrating illegality in a comprehensive rule of reason inquiry (see, e.g., Standard Oil Co. v. United States , 283 U. S. 163, 179 ; Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States , 246 U. S. 231, 238-239 ), especially since there will, in any event, be a trial on the merits of the first cause of action. | 4 | 1971–1976 |
Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) v. United States
green
2 sentences1976(Cf. United States v. Griffith, 334 U. S. 100 , 107 et seq.) Therefore, * * * we are reluctant to foreclose the plaintiff from an opportunity of factually demonstrating illegality in a comprehensive rule of reason inquiry (see, e.g., Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 163, 179 ; Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States, 246 U. S. 231, 238-239 ), especially since there will, in any event, be a trial on the merits of the first cause of action. 1976(Cf. United States v. Griffith , 334 U. S. 100 , 107 et seq. ) Therefore, * * * we are reluctant to foreclose the plaintiff from an opportunity of factually demonstrating illegality in a comprehensive rule of reason inquiry (see, e.g., Standard Oil Co. v. United States , 283 U. S. 163, 179 ; Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States , 246 U. S. 231, 238-239 ), especially since there will, in any event, be a trial on the merits of the first cause of action. | 4 | 1971–1976 |
Matter of Edmunds v. Fortune
neutral
2 sentences2018Where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of orders relating to custody and visitation generally require a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard ( see Matter of Edmunds v Fortune , 156 AD3d 880, 881 ; Matter of Buck v Buck , 154 AD3d 1134, 1135 ). 2018"Generally, where a facially sufficient petition has been filed, modification of a Family Ct Act article 6 custody and visitation order requires a full and comprehensive hearing at which a parent is to be afforded a full and fair opportunity to be heard" ( Matter of Edmunds v Fortune , 156 AD3d 880, 881 ; see Matter of Buck v Buck, 154 AD3d 1134 ; Matter of Izquierdo v Santiago, 151 AD3d 967, 968 ; Matter of Jeffrey JJ. v Stephanie KK. , 88 AD3d 1083, 1084 ) . | 3 | 2018–2018 |
| Anstett v. Wolcott green | 3 | 1984–1988 |
| Chaya S. v. Frederick Herbert L. green | 2 | 2017–2018 |
| Matter of Corey Uu. green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| Jeffers v. Hicks green | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| Gant v. Higgins green | 2 | 2001–2007 |
| Venzer v. Venzer neutral | 2 | 1994–1997 |
| Lincoln v. Lincoln green | 2 | 1976–1983 |
| Stebbins v. Eddy green | 2 | 1856–1856 |
| Palazzola v. Palazzola green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Thomson v. Battle green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Matter of Bagot v. McClain green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Matter of Sean P.H. (Rosemarie H.) green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Ruth v. Elderwood At Amherst green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Matter of Orobona v. Cunningham green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| People v. Sidbury green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Trustees of the Village of Saratoga Springs v. Saratoga Gas, Electric Light & Power Co. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Matter of Benvenga v. La Guardia green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.