17 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1955–2014 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. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2014No such considerations are relevant here; defendant is an involuntary deportee, not an absconder (compare People v Rodriguez, 67 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 706 [2010]). 2014No such considerations are relevant here; defendant is an involuntary deportee, not an absconder (compare People v Rodriguez, 67 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 706 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
Wechsler v. Wechslergreen2 sentences2014A notable exception is the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which applies to “those who evade the law while simultaneously seeking its protection,” particularly where “the appellant’s absence frustrates enforcement of the civil judgment” (Wechsler v Wechsler, 45 AD3d 470, 472 [1st Dept 2007]). 2014A notable exception is the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, which applies to “those who evade the law while simultaneously seeking its protection,” particularly where “the appellant’s absence frustrates enforcement of the civil judgment” (Wechsler v Wechsler, 45 AD3d 470, 472 [1st Dept 2007]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Bakergreen1 sentence2011The hammer was not connected with the crimes charged in the indictment in any respect that would make it relevant to an issue in the case (see People v Mirenda, 23 NY2d 439, 453 [1969]; People v Baker, 103 AD2d 749, 750 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mirendagreen1 sentence2011The hammer was not connected with the crimes charged in the indictment in any respect that would make it relevant to an issue in the case (see People v Mirenda, 23 NY2d 439, 453 [1969]; People v Baker, 103 AD2d 749, 750 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2009There is a notable exception to the hearsay exclusion rule for statements uttered under the stress of excitement, caused by an external event that “still[s the declarant’s] reflective faculties,” removing the opportunity for deliberation that might lead to untruthfulness (People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493, 497 [1979]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Deangreen2 sentences1990Although, as the majority notes, CPL 30.30 is not a "speedy trial statute in the constitutional sense” (People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529 , supra, at 535; see also, People v Brothers, 50 NY2d 413 , supra, at 416), it is nonetheless a significant piece of legislation (see, People v Dean, 45 NY2d 651, 656 ) which would "become a mockery if an assertion of readiness, without any substantiation, excuses needless delay” (People v Dean, supra, at 656 ). 1990Although, as the majority notes, CPL 30.30 is not a "speedy trial statute in the constitutional sense” (People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529 , supra, at 535; see also, People v Brothers, 50 NY2d 413 , supra, at 416), it is nonetheless a significant piece of legislation (see, People v Dean, 45 NY2d 651, 656 ) which would "become a mockery if an assertion of readiness, without any substantiation, excuses needless delay” (People v Dean, supra, at 656 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Brothersgreen1 sentence1990Although, as the majority notes, CPL 30.30 is not a "speedy trial statute in the constitutional sense” (People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529 , supra, at 535; see also, People v Brothers, 50 NY2d 413 , supra, at 416), it is nonetheless a significant piece of legislation (see, People v Dean, 45 NY2d 651, 656 ) which would "become a mockery if an assertion of readiness, without any substantiation, excuses needless delay” (People v Dean, supra, at 656 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Woodgreen1 sentence1984Similarly, with the notable exception of the Third Department, which has applied the merger doctrine to subdivision 3 kidnappings (see People v Graham, 69 AD2d 544 , vacated on other grounds 446 US 932 , on remand 76 AD2d 228 , vacated on other grounds 458 US 1101 , on remand 90 AD2d 198 , cert den_US _, 104 S Ct 246 ; People v Lucas, 73 AD2d 699 , cross app by People dsmd 53 NY2d 678 ; see, also, People v Wood, 64 AD2d 767 ), courts applying the present statutory scheme have refrained from applying the merger rule to cases involving the death of the victim (see, e.g., People v Zada, 82 AD2d 9 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Zadagreen1 sentence1984Similarly, with the notable exception of the Third Department, which has applied the merger doctrine to subdivision 3 kidnappings (see People v Graham, 69 AD2d 544 , vacated on other grounds 446 US 932 , on remand 76 AD2d 228 , vacated on other grounds 458 US 1101 , on remand 90 AD2d 198 , cert den_US _, 104 S Ct 246 ; People v Lucas, 73 AD2d 699 , cross app by People dsmd 53 NY2d 678 ; see, also, People v Wood, 64 AD2d 767 ), courts applying the present statutory scheme have refrained from applying the merger rule to cases involving the death of the victim (see, e.g., People v Zada, 82 AD2d 9 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hirschfeld v. Hogan
green
2 sentences2014No such considerations are relevant here; defendant is an involuntary deportee, not an absconder (compare People v Rodriguez, 67 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 706 [2010]). 2014No such considerations are relevant here; defendant is an involuntary deportee, not an absconder (compare People v Rodriguez, 67 AD3d 596, 597 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 706 [2010]). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Dawson
green
1 sentence1996A notable exception is the permissible use of this information to impeach a defendant’s testimony at trial (Jenkins v Anderson, 447 US 231 ; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 321 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Jenkins v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1996A notable exception is the permissible use of this information to impeach a defendant’s testimony at trial (Jenkins v Anderson, 447 US 231 ; People v Dawson, 50 NY2d 311, 321 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1990Although, as the majority notes, CPL 30.30 is not a "speedy trial statute in the constitutional sense” (People v Anderson, 66 NY2d 529 , supra, at 535; see also, People v Brothers, 50 NY2d 413 , supra, at 416), it is nonetheless a significant piece of legislation (see, People v Dean, 45 NY2d 651, 656 ) which would "become a mockery if an assertion of readiness, without any substantiation, excuses needless delay” (People v Dean, supra, at 656 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Wagner v. NFS Financial Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986Co. ( 77 AD2d 501, 502 , revg 97 Misc 2d 346 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Salomone v. Macmillan Publishing Co.
green
1 sentence1986Co. ( 77 AD2d 501, 502 , revg 97 Misc 2d 346 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Graham
green
1 sentence1984Similarly, with the notable exception of the Third Department, which has applied the merger doctrine to subdivision 3 kidnappings (see People v Graham, 69 AD2d 544 , vacated on other grounds 446 US 932 , on remand 76 AD2d 228 , vacated on other grounds 458 US 1101 , on remand 90 AD2d 198 , cert den_US _, 104 S Ct 246 ; People v Lucas, 73 AD2d 699 , cross app by People dsmd 53 NY2d 678 ; see, also, People v Wood, 64 AD2d 767 ), courts applying the present statutory scheme have refrained from applying the merger rule to cases involving the death of the victim (see, e.g., People v Zada, 82 AD2d 9 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Lucas
neutral
1 sentence1984Similarly, with the notable exception of the Third Department, which has applied the merger doctrine to subdivision 3 kidnappings (see People v Graham, 69 AD2d 544 , vacated on other grounds 446 US 932 , on remand 76 AD2d 228 , vacated on other grounds 458 US 1101 , on remand 90 AD2d 198 , cert den_US _, 104 S Ct 246 ; People v Lucas, 73 AD2d 699 , cross app by People dsmd 53 NY2d 678 ; see, also, People v Wood, 64 AD2d 767 ), courts applying the present statutory scheme have refrained from applying the merger rule to cases involving the death of the victim (see, e.g., People v Zada, 82 AD2d 9 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Graham
green
1 sentence1984Similarly, with the notable exception of the Third Department, which has applied the merger doctrine to subdivision 3 kidnappings (see People v Graham, 69 AD2d 544 , vacated on other grounds 446 US 932 , on remand 76 AD2d 228 , vacated on other grounds 458 US 1101 , on remand 90 AD2d 198 , cert den_US _, 104 S Ct 246 ; People v Lucas, 73 AD2d 699 , cross app by People dsmd 53 NY2d 678 ; see, also, People v Wood, 64 AD2d 767 ), courts applying the present statutory scheme have refrained from applying the merger rule to cases involving the death of the victim (see, e.g., People v Zada, 82 AD2d 9 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Graham
neutral
1 sentence1984Similarly, with the notable exception of the Third Department, which has applied the merger doctrine to subdivision 3 kidnappings (see People v Graham, 69 AD2d 544 , vacated on other grounds 446 US 932 , on remand 76 AD2d 228 , vacated on other grounds 458 US 1101 , on remand 90 AD2d 198 , cert den_US _, 104 S Ct 246 ; People v Lucas, 73 AD2d 699 , cross app by People dsmd 53 NY2d 678 ; see, also, People v Wood, 64 AD2d 767 ), courts applying the present statutory scheme have refrained from applying the merger rule to cases involving the death of the victim (see, e.g., People v Zada, 82 AD2d 9 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms
green
1 sentence1984We find the Third Department precedents unpersuasive and decline to follow them (see Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 665 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Davis v. Weldon
green
1 sentence1984Similarly, with the notable exception of the Third Department, which has applied the merger doctrine to subdivision 3 kidnappings (see People v Graham, 69 AD2d 544 , vacated on other grounds 446 US 932 , on remand 76 AD2d 228 , vacated on other grounds 458 US 1101 , on remand 90 AD2d 198 , cert den_US _, 104 S Ct 246 ; People v Lucas, 73 AD2d 699 , cross app by People dsmd 53 NY2d 678 ; see, also, People v Wood, 64 AD2d 767 ), courts applying the present statutory scheme have refrained from applying the merger rule to cases involving the death of the victim (see, e.g., People v Zada, 82 AD2d 9 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
California v. Braeseke
neutral
1 sentence1984Similarly, with the notable exception of the Third Department, which has applied the merger doctrine to subdivision 3 kidnappings (see People v Graham, 69 AD2d 544 , vacated on other grounds 446 US 932 , on remand 76 AD2d 228 , vacated on other grounds 458 US 1101 , on remand 90 AD2d 198 , cert den_US _, 104 S Ct 246 ; People v Lucas, 73 AD2d 699 , cross app by People dsmd 53 NY2d 678 ; see, also, People v Wood, 64 AD2d 767 ), courts applying the present statutory scheme have refrained from applying the merger rule to cases involving the death of the victim (see, e.g., People v Zada, 82 AD2d 9 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Graham v. New York
green
1 sentence1984Similarly, with the notable exception of the Third Department, which has applied the merger doctrine to subdivision 3 kidnappings (see People v Graham, 69 AD2d 544 , vacated on other grounds 446 US 932 , on remand 76 AD2d 228 , vacated on other grounds 458 US 1101 , on remand 90 AD2d 198 , cert den_US _, 104 S Ct 246 ; People v Lucas, 73 AD2d 699 , cross app by People dsmd 53 NY2d 678 ; see, also, People v Wood, 64 AD2d 767 ), courts applying the present statutory scheme have refrained from applying the merger rule to cases involving the death of the victim (see, e.g., People v Zada, 82 AD2d 9 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Lucas
green
1 sentence1984Similarly, with the notable exception of the Third Department, which has applied the merger doctrine to subdivision 3 kidnappings (see People v Graham, 69 AD2d 544 , vacated on other grounds 446 US 932 , on remand 76 AD2d 228 , vacated on other grounds 458 US 1101 , on remand 90 AD2d 198 , cert den_US _, 104 S Ct 246 ; People v Lucas, 73 AD2d 699 , cross app by People dsmd 53 NY2d 678 ; see, also, People v Wood, 64 AD2d 767 ), courts applying the present statutory scheme have refrained from applying the merger rule to cases involving the death of the victim (see, e.g., People v Zada, 82 AD2d 9 | 1 | 1984–1984 |
New York Institute of Technology v. State Division of Human Rights
green
1 sentence1983In the present case, however, the tenure procedures practiced by petitioner, if applied in a nondiscriminatory manner, do not appear to be irreparably tainted so that further recourse to them would be futile, rendering a fair consideration impossible (see New York Inst, of Technology v State Div. of Human Rights, 40 NY2d 316, 326 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Cohoes City School District v. Cohoes Teachers Ass'n
green
1 sentence1983While the authority to grant tenure is vested solely in the appropriate board of education, there is a notable exception where the dismissal was, as here, for constitutionally impermissible reasons or in violation of statutory proscriptions (Matter of Cohoes City School Dist. v Cohoes Teachers Assn., 40 NY2d 774, 777 ). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Bolotnikov v. Katz
green
1 sentence1982The intent of this section is to protect permanent rooming house residents, and not hotel tenants or transient rooming house residents (see Bolotnikov v Katz, 95 Misc 2d 377 ; NY Legis Ann, 1956, pp 242, 244). . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
McKeiver v. Pennsylvania
green
1 sentence1982(See McKeiver v Pennsylvania, 403 US 528 .) Notwithstanding Matter of Gault’s voiced concerns regarding secret adjudicatory hearings, the practice of automatic absolute closure has not ended. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Wyss v. State
green
1 sentence1980California v Dalton, 445 US 946 [wherein the warrantless search of a large metal box and a "Longine” box was deemed to be unlawful]), have generally upheld searches of unsecured boxes (United States v Neumann, 585 F2d 355; State v Kahlon, 172 NJ Super 331), paper bags (United States v Ross, — F2d — [DC Cir, Tamm, J., April 17, 1980]; United States v Vento, 533 F2d 838; Clark v State, 574 P2d 1261 [Alaska]; Webb v State, supra [dictum]), and other receptacles such as: plastic bags (United States v Gooch, 603 F2d 122; Flynn v State, 374 So 2d 1041 [Fla]), a closed but unlocked toolbox (Wyss v St | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Clark v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Gispert v. United States
green
1 sentence1980California v Dalton, 445 US 946 [wherein the warrantless search of a large metal box and a "Longine” box was deemed to be unlawful]), have generally upheld searches of unsecured boxes (United States v Neumann, 585 F2d 355; State v Kahlon, 172 NJ Super 331), paper bags (United States v Ross, — F2d — [DC Cir, Tamm, J., April 17, 1980]; United States v Vento, 533 F2d 838; Clark v State, 574 P2d 1261 [Alaska]; Webb v State, supra [dictum]), and other receptacles such as: plastic bags (United States v Gooch, 603 F2d 122; Flynn v State, 374 So 2d 1041 [Fla]), a closed but unlocked toolbox (Wyss v St | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| In re David J. green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| In Re GAULT green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Matter of Sullivan (Alesi) green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Shielcrawt v. Moffett neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Shielcrawt v. Moffett green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| People v. Spillman green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Arnold v. Mayal Realty Co. green | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Daly v. . Amberg neutral | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Schram v. Keane green | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.