98 New York opinions name it 12 courts 1887–2026 11 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. Binggreen2 sentences2026This doctrine of stare decisis "rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes" ( id. at 338). 2026This doctrine of stare decisis "rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes" ( id. at 338 ). | 8 | 15 |
People v. Damianogreen2 sentences2015Stare Decisis and Developments Post-Amato Even if we were to disagree with our holding in Amato, we would nonetheless be bound to follow it under the doctrine of stare decisis. “ ‘Stare decisis is the doctrine which holds that common-law decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future’ and that a rule of law ‘once decided by a court, will generally be followed in subsequent cases presenting the same legal problem’ ” (People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 194 [2013], quoting People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477, 488 [1996, Simons, J., concurring]). 1998Then again, even within the doctrine of stare decisis, some modification of the precedential constraint may become imperative because the flagrant delays may persist, worsen and ultimately become jurisprudentially intolerable (see, People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 342-348 ; see also, People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477, 504-506 [Bellacosa, J., dissenting]). | 7 | 7 |
People v. Pequegreen2 sentences2024In charting a different course, the majority disregards the doctrine of stare decisis, “which holds that common-law decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future and that a rule of law once decided by a court, will generally be followed in subsequent cases presenting the same legal problem” (People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 194 [2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2015Stare Decisis and Developments Post-Amato Even if we were to disagree with our holding in Amato, we would nonetheless be bound to follow it under the doctrine of stare decisis. “ ‘Stare decisis is the doctrine which holds that common-law decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future’ and that a rule of law ‘once decided by a court, will generally be followed in subsequent cases presenting the same legal problem’ ” (People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 194 [2013], quoting People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477, 488 [1996, Simons, J., concurring]). | 5 | 6 |
Dufel v. Greengreen2 sentences2012The doctrine of stare decisis “recognizes that legal questions, once resolved, should not be reexamined every time they are presented” (Dufel v Green, 198 AD2d 640, 640 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 795 [1995]). “ ‘The doctrine . . . rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes’ ” (People v Taylor, 9 NY3d 129, 148 [2007], quoting People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 338 [1990], rearg denied 76 NY2d 890 [1990]). 2012The doctrine of stare decisis “recognizes that legal questions, once resolved, should not be reexamined every time they are presented” (Dufel v Green, 198 AD2d 640, 640 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 795 [1995]). “ ‘The doctrine . . . rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes’ ” (People v Taylor, 9 NY3d 129, 148 [2007], quoting People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 338 [1990], rearg denied 76 NY2d 890 [1990]). | 4 | 8 |
People v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2012The doctrine of stare decisis “recognizes that legal questions, once resolved, should not be reexamined every time they are presented” (Dufel v Green, 198 AD2d 640, 640 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 795 [1995]). “ ‘The doctrine . . . rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes’ ” (People v Taylor, 9 NY3d 129, 148 [2007], quoting People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 338 [1990], rearg denied 76 NY2d 890 [1990]). 2012The doctrine of stare decisis “recognizes that legal questions, once resolved, should not be reexamined every time they are presented” (Dufel v Green, 198 AD2d 640, 640 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 795 [1995]). “ ‘The doctrine . . . rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes’ ” (People v Taylor, 9 NY3d 129, 148 [2007], quoting People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 338 [1990], rearg denied 76 NY2d 890 [1990]). | 4 | 5 |
Baden v. Staplesgreen2 sentences2012Stare decisis “ ‘is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process’ ” (id.; see People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477, 488-489 [1996] [Simons, J., concurring]; Baden v Staples, 45 NY2d 889, 892 [1978]). 1979Therefore, PERB’s decision to overrule its prior holding in Sachem some six months after it was decided did not violate the doctrine of stare decisis (see Baden v Staples, 45 NY2d 889, 892 ; People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 488 ). | 3 | 5 |
People v. Hobsongreen2 sentences2014Although we question the continued utility or wisdom of the Martin rule, mindful of “the eminently desirable and essential doctrine of stare decisis” (People v Hobson ( 39 NY2d 479, 487 [1976, Breitel, Ch. 2008At the root of the techniques must be a humbling assumption, often true, that no particular court as it is then constituted possesses a wisdom surpassing that of its predecessors.” (Pe ople v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 488 [1976].) “The doctrine of stare decisis does not, of course, demand unyielding resignation to even recent precedent . . . | 2 | 10 |
Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Stormsgreen2 sentences2008Furthermore, the court finds that the holding of the Fourth Department in Sierk is binding here under the doctrine of stare decisis, unless and until either the Court of Appeals or the Third Department (the governing appellate department here) order to the contrary (Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms, 102 AD2d 663, 664 [1984]). 2004It cannot be credibly disputed that under the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court, which sits in the Second Judicial Department, must follow all precedent of the Appellate Division, Second Department, unless contrary authority from the Court of Appeals exists ( Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms , supra , 102 A.D.2d, at 664 ; People v. Towndrow , supra , 187 A.D.2d, at 195 ). | 2 | 5 |
Higby v. Mahoneygreen2 sentences2006Under the doctrine of stare decisis, we do not lightly depart from our precedents, particularly those involving *420 contractual rights or statutory interpretation — both are at stake in this case (see Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galbo, 68 NY2d 373, 381 [1986]; Matter of Higby v Mahoney, 48 NY2d 15, 19 [1979]). 1980Moreover, the Court of Appeals itself, in the recent case of Matter of Higby v Mahoney ( 48 NY2d 15, p 18, n 1 ) urges just such a view, stating, in a Per Curiam opinion; "The doctrine of stare decisis does not, of course, demand unyielding resignation to even recent precedent * * * in any discussion of stare decisis it must be taken, arguendo, that strong arguments can be mounted to support a different result.” The main thrust of defendant’s cross motion is that these individual two plaintiffs have no standing to sue since they were members of a union, and the union should be the party litiga | 2 | 4 |
Beekman v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025See Beekman , 65 AD2d at 318 ("Furthermore, any other retirees in a similar position to that of the present plaintiffs wishing to institute suit would first have to await the outcome of the present action in order to benefit from the doctrine of stare decisis ."). 2025See Beekman , 65 AD2d at 318 ("Furthermore, any other retirees in a similar position to that of the present plaintiffs wishing to institute suit would first have to await the outcome of the present action in order to benefit from the doctrine of stare decisis ."). | 2 | 2 |
S.B. v. A.C.C.green2 sentences2025The stare decisis doctrine instructs that courts should "overrule a prior decision" only "in the rarest of cases," when "an extraordinary combination of factors undermines" its "reasoning and practical viability" ( Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C. , 28 NY3d 1, 23 [2016]). 2025The stare decisis doctrine instructs that courts should "overrule a prior decision" only "in the rarest of cases," when "an extraordinary combination of factors undermines" its "reasoning and practical viability" ( Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C. , 28 NY3d 1, 23 [2016]). | 2 | 2 |
Chateau D' If Corp. v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2014Although Rosenbaum only argued that the defamation claim should be dismissed on the ground of the judicial proceedings privilege, our prior decision is controlling here, pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis, and, under the circumstances, the issue can be raised for the first time on appeal (see Chateau D’ If Corp. v City of New York, 219 AD2d 205, 209 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 811 [1996]). 2014Although Rosenbaum only argued that the defamation claim should be dismissed on the ground of the judicial proceedings privilege, our prior decision is controlling here, pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis, and, under the circumstances, the issue can be raised for the first time on appeal (see Chateau D’ If Corp. v City of New York, 219 AD2d 205, 209 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 811 [1996]). | 2 | 2 |
EASTERN CONSOLIDATED PROPERTIES, INC. v. Adelaide Realty Corp.green2 sentences2017Props., 95 NY2d 785 , revd 18 NY3d 481 [2012]; Cenven, Inc. 41 NY2d at 843 ). 2017Props., 95 NY2d 785 , revd 18 NY3d 481 [2012]; Cenven, Inc., 41 NY2d at 843 ). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2015Even under the most flexible version of the doctrine applicable to constitutional jurisprudence, prior decisions should not be overruled unless a “compelling justification” exists for such a drastic step (People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375 , 384 n 5 [2011]; see People v Silva, 24 NY3d 294, 300 [2014]). 2014We recently discussed the principles underlying the doctrine of stare decisis (see People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 194 [2013], cert denied sub nom Thomas v New York, __ US __, 135 S Ct 90 [2014]) and it is sufficient for us to reiterate that a "compelling justification" is required to cast aside precedent (id.; see People v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375 , 384 n 5 [2011]). | 1 | 2 |
Fitzgerald v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2026Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v Canadian Imperial Bank of Com ., 21 NY3d 55, 62 [2013]; see also Fitzgerald v Washington , 80 Misc 2d 861, 870 (Civ Ct, New York County 1975) [noting the rules of statutory construction militate that when amending the statute to include attorneys as individuals who could verify a petition "the legislature is presumed to have been aware of the interaction of RPAPL § 721 with the various provisions of the CPLR[,]" citing Erikson v Helfand , 1 AD2d 59 [3d Dept], aff'd ,1 NY2d 775 1955].) Neither are the numerous cases — cited by the Ramlogan and Macias courts 2026Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v Canadian Imperial Bank of Com ., 21 NY3d 55, 62 [2013]; see also Fitzgerald v Washington , 80 Misc 2d 861, 870 (Civ Ct, New York County 1975) [noting the rules of statutory construction militate that when amending the statute to include attorneys as individuals who could verify a petition "the legislature is presumed to have been aware of the interaction of RPAPL § 721 with the various provisions of the CPLR[,]" citing Erikson v Helfand , 1 AD2d 59 [3d Dept], aff'd , 1 NY2d 775 1955 ].) Neither are the numerous cases — cited by the Ramlogan and Macias court | 1 | 1 |
Erikson v. Helfandgreen2 sentences2026Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v Canadian Imperial Bank of Com ., 21 NY3d 55, 62 [2013]; see also Fitzgerald v Washington , 80 Misc 2d 861, 870 (Civ Ct, New York County 1975) [noting the rules of statutory construction militate that when amending the statute to include attorneys as individuals who could verify a petition "the legislature is presumed to have been aware of the interaction of RPAPL § 721 with the various provisions of the CPLR[,]" citing Erikson v Helfand , 1 AD2d 59 [3d Dept], aff'd ,1 NY2d 775 1955].) Neither are the numerous cases — cited by the Ramlogan and Macias courts 2026Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v Canadian Imperial Bank of Com ., 21 NY3d 55, 62 [2013]; see also Fitzgerald v Washington , 80 Misc 2d 861, 870 (Civ Ct, New York County 1975) [noting the rules of statutory construction militate that when amending the statute to include attorneys as individuals who could verify a petition "the legislature is presumed to have been aware of the interaction of RPAPL § 721 with the various provisions of the CPLR[,]" citing Erikson v Helfand , 1 AD2d 59 [3d Dept], aff'd , 1 NY2d 775 1955 ].) Neither are the numerous cases — cited by the Ramlogan and Macias court | 1 | 1 |
Erikson v. Helfandgreen2 sentences2026Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v Canadian Imperial Bank of Com ., 21 NY3d 55, 62 [2013]; see also Fitzgerald v Washington , 80 Misc 2d 861, 870 (Civ Ct, New York County 1975) [noting the rules of statutory construction militate that when amending the statute to include attorneys as individuals who could verify a petition "the legislature is presumed to have been aware of the interaction of RPAPL § 721 with the various provisions of the CPLR[,]" citing Erikson v Helfand , 1 AD2d 59 [3d Dept], aff'd ,1 NY2d 775 1955].) Neither are the numerous cases — cited by the Ramlogan and Macias courts 2026Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v Canadian Imperial Bank of Com ., 21 NY3d 55, 62 [2013]; see also Fitzgerald v Washington , 80 Misc 2d 861, 870 (Civ Ct, New York County 1975) [noting the rules of statutory construction militate that when amending the statute to include attorneys as individuals who could verify a petition "the legislature is presumed to have been aware of the interaction of RPAPL § 721 with the various provisions of the CPLR[,]" citing Erikson v Helfand , 1 AD2d 59 [3d Dept], aff'd , 1 NY2d 775 1955 ].) Neither are the numerous cases — cited by the Ramlogan and Macias court | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commercegreen2 sentences2026Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v Canadian Imperial Bank of Com ., 21 NY3d 55, 62 [2013]; see also Fitzgerald v Washington , 80 Misc 2d 861, 870 (Civ Ct, New York County 1975) [noting the rules of statutory construction militate that when amending the statute to include attorneys as individuals who could verify a petition "the legislature is presumed to have been aware of the interaction of RPAPL § 721 with the various provisions of the CPLR[,]" citing Erikson v Helfand , 1 AD2d 59 [3d Dept], aff'd ,1 NY2d 775 1955].) Neither are the numerous cases — cited by the Ramlogan and Macias courts 2026Commonwealth of N. Mariana Islands v Canadian Imperial Bank of Com ., 21 NY3d 55, 62 [2013]; see also Fitzgerald v Washington , 80 Misc 2d 861, 870 (Civ Ct, New York County 1975) [noting the rules of statutory construction militate that when amending the statute to include attorneys as individuals who could verify a petition "the legislature is presumed to have been aware of the interaction of RPAPL § 721 with the various provisions of the CPLR[,]" citing Erikson v Helfand , 1 AD2d 59 [3d Dept], aff'd , 1 NY2d 775 1955 ].) Neither are the numerous cases — cited by the Ramlogan and Macias court | 1 | 1 |
| Vaughan v. Leongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Waldron v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beharry v. Public Storage, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Esquivel v. 2707 Creston Realty, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vasquez v. Hillerygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Credit Bureau of New York, Inc. v. Rapid Realty 95, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Robinson Motor Xpress, Inc. v. HSBC Bank, USAgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Turnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| The People v. Pamela Hanson, The People v. Julian Silvagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Payne v. Tennesseegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Holy Properties Ltd. v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Brennin v. Peralesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| 81 Franklin Co. v. Ginaccinigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Liberty Healthcare Management Group, Inc. v. Faheygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maxton Builders, Inc. v. Lo Galbogreen | 1 | 1 |
| C.M. v. C.H.green | 1 | 1 |
| Marks v. Macchiarolagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Friedsam v. State Tax Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Simpson v. Loehmanngreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dufel v. Green
green
2 sentences2012The doctrine of stare decisis “recognizes that legal questions, once resolved, should not be reexamined every time they are presented” (Dufel v Green, 198 AD2d 640, 640 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 795 [1995]). “ ‘The doctrine . . . rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes’ ” (People v Taylor, 9 NY3d 129, 148 [2007], quoting People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 338 [1990], rearg denied 76 NY2d 890 [1990]). 2012The doctrine of stare decisis “recognizes that legal questions, once resolved, should not be reexamined every time they are presented” (Dufel v Green, 198 AD2d 640, 640 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 795 [1995]). “ ‘The doctrine . . . rests upon the principle that a court is an institution, not merely a collection of individuals, and that governing rules of law do not change merely because the personnel of the court changes’ ” (People v Taylor, 9 NY3d 129, 148 [2007], quoting People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331, 338 [1990], rearg denied 76 NY2d 890 [1990]). | 8 | 1997–2012 |
Jones v. Berman
green
2 sentences1997In addition, since 86 ADM-7 and 89 ADM-6 already impose time limits on defendant’s eligibility determinations and, in cases of immediate need, on the payment of emergency moving benefits, plaintiffs are adequately protected by the doctrine of stare decisis (see, Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57 ). 1996(See, Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57 .) However, in this case the members of the proposed class are, as is the named plaintiff, indigent elderly individuals for whom the commencement of individual actions to obtain the small monthly benefits that might result from this action would be 'oppressively burdensome’ (compare, Matter of Lamboy v Gross, 126 AD2d 265, 274 ). | 3 | 1991–1997 |
Lamboy v. Gross
green
2 sentences1996(See, Matter of Jones v Berman, 37 NY2d 42, 57 .) However, in this case the members of the proposed class are, as is the named plaintiff, indigent elderly individuals for whom the commencement of individual actions to obtain the small monthly benefits that might result from this action would be 'oppressively burdensome’ (compare, Matter of Lamboy v Gross, 126 AD2d 265, 274 ). 1995(Lamboy v Gross, 129 Misc 2d 564 [Sup Ct, NY County 1985], affd 126 AD2d 265 [1st Dept 1987].) A judgment favoring the plaintiffs does bind the governmental body with respect to all persons similarly situated. | 3 | 1991–1996 |
In re the Estate of Eckart
green
2 sentences1977Indeed, our court has recently spoken on several occasions for the need to respect the doctrine of stare decisis (cf. Donawitz v Danek , 42 N.Y.2d 138, 142 ; People v Hobson , 39 N.Y.2d 479, 487-491 ; Matter of Eckart , 39 N.Y.2d 493, 498-500 ). 1977On these views, there is insufficient basis for departing from application of the doctrine of stare decisis, a departure to be resorted to only with the greatest restraint (People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 487-491 ; Matter of Eckart, 39 NY2d 493, 498-500 ; cf. Cenven, Inc. v Bethlehem Steel, 41 NY2d 842 ). | 3 | 1976–1977 |
People v. Towndrow
green
2 sentences2004It cannot be credibly disputed that under the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court, which sits in the Second Judicial Department, must follow all precedent of the Appellate Division, Second Department, unless contrary authority from the Court of Appeals exists ( Mountain View Coach Lines, Inc. v. Storms , supra , 102 A.D.2d, at 664 ; People v. Towndrow , supra , 187 A.D.2d, at 195 ). 1997As plaintiff correctly points out, Supreme Court, under the doctrine of stare decisis, was required to follow our decision dismissing defendant’s antisubrogation defense (see, People v Towndrow, 187 AD2d 194, 195 , appeal dismissed 81 NY2d 1021 ; Ross Bicycles v Citibank, 149 AD2d 330, 331 ). | 2 | 1997–2004 |
Morgan v. State
green
2 sentences1999Relying upon the Court of Appeals decision in Morgan v State of New York ( 90 NY2d 471 ) and the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court of Claims granted the State’s motion and dismissed the underlying claims. 1999Relying upon the Court of Appeals decision in Morgan v State of New York ( 90 NY2d 471 ) and the doctrine of stare decisis, the Court of Claims granted the State’s motion and dismissed the underlying claims. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Crociata v. State Tax Commission
neutral
2 sentences1992"It is well settled that class action certification is inappropriate in a case such as this where governmental actions are involved and subsequent plaintiffs will be adequately protected under the doctrine of stare decisis” (Duffy v Wetzler, 148 Misc 2d 459, 464 , supra, citing Matter of Crociata v State Tax Commn., 133 Misc 2d 855 , affd 134 AD2d 112 , affd 73 NY2d 726 ; Conklin v Town of Southampton, 141 AD2d 596 ). 1990(Matter of Crociata v State Tax Commn., supra; Conklin v Town of Southampton, 141 AD2d 596 .) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that this case presents an exception to this well-established rule. | 2 | 1990–1992 |
Conklin v. Town of Southampton
green
2 sentences1992"It is well settled that class action certification is inappropriate in a case such as this where governmental actions are involved and subsequent plaintiffs will be adequately protected under the doctrine of stare decisis” (Duffy v Wetzler, 148 Misc 2d 459, 464 , supra, citing Matter of Crociata v State Tax Commn., 133 Misc 2d 855 , affd 134 AD2d 112 , affd 73 NY2d 726 ; Conklin v Town of Southampton, 141 AD2d 596 ). 1990(Matter of Crociata v State Tax Commn., supra; Conklin v Town of Southampton, 141 AD2d 596 .) Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that this case presents an exception to this well-established rule. | 2 | 1990–1992 |
Baker v. . Lorillard
green
2 sentences1976In an early case our own court recognized that the doctrine had certain limitations, but it was noted that the court would not depart from its prior holdings, "unless impelled by 'the most cogent reasons’ ” (Baker v Lorillard, 4 NY 257, 261 ). 1922In People v. Brooklyn, 9 Barb. 544 , it was said: “ We look into these opinions in vain for the evidence of that solemn argument and mature deliberation which, upon the doctrine of stare decisis, should give to this case the weight of authority sufficient to foreclose the judgment of all other tribunals upon the same question.” In Baker v. Lorillard, supra (p. 261), the court said: “I go farther, and hold it to be the duty of every judge and every court to examine its own decision and the decisions of other courts without fear, and to revise them without reluctance.” In Wayne County Savings Ba | 2 | 1922–1976 |
In re the Estate Herle
green
2 sentences1957While the court will generally adhere to matters determined by decision, the doctrine of stare decisis will not be applied where the court is of the opinion that a different result is indicated by the facts and law, nor is the court required to follow the decision rendered in a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction (Matter of Herle, 165 Misc. 46 ; Matter of Brundage, 163 Misc. 1 ). 1940The doctrine or rule of stare decisis is merely a rule of precedent; stated in its general and simplest terms, the doctrine of stare decisis expresses the policy of the courts to stand by precedents and not disturb settled points; it is not a rule of compulsion but one of deference to precedent (Matter of Herle, 165 Misc. 46 ; United States v. Certain Bottles, 37 F. [2d] 137; Neff v. George, 364 Ill. 306 ); moreover, the stare decisis rule is not universally applicable to all situations without exception, and has more or less force, according to the nature of the question decided (Kellum v. Co | 2 | 1940–1957 |
Dwight v. . St. John
green
2 sentences1938John, 25 N. Y. 203 ; Hirshbach v. Ketchum, 79 App. Div. 561, 563 ), or under the doctrine of stare decisis.” This case was cited in Endurance Holding Corp. v. Kramer Surgical Stores, Inc. ( 227 App. Div. 582 ); that court also citing Barber v. Rowe (200 id. 290), to the effect that where no appeal was taken from an order Overruling a demurrer, that order was conclusive and the law of the case on all questions, and could not be reviewed by another justice. 1910John, 25 N. Y. 203 ; Hirshbach v. Ketchum, 79 App. Div. 561, 563 ) or under the doctrine of stare decisis. | 2 | 1910–1938 |
Hirshbach v. Ketchum
neutral
2 sentences1938John, 25 N. Y. 203 ; Hirshbach v. Ketchum, 79 App. Div. 561, 563 ), or under the doctrine of stare decisis.” This case was cited in Endurance Holding Corp. v. Kramer Surgical Stores, Inc. ( 227 App. Div. 582 ); that court also citing Barber v. Rowe (200 id. 290), to the effect that where no appeal was taken from an order Overruling a demurrer, that order was conclusive and the law of the case on all questions, and could not be reviewed by another justice. 1910John, 25 N. Y. 203 ; Hirshbach v. Ketchum, 79 App. Div. 561, 563 ) or under the doctrine of stare decisis. | 2 | 1910–1938 |
| People v. Stirrup green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Vullo green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Matter of Benvenga v. La Guardia green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Markovich v. Leavitt green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Catholic Charities of the Diocese v. Serio green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Yenem Corp. v. 281 Broadway Holdings green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Eichenholtz neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Rivera green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Zebrowski v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Lynda A. H. v. Diane T. O. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Multari v. Sorrell green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Janis C. v. Christine T. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| People v. Brisotti green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Graff v. Billet green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Graff v. Billet green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Ross Bicycles, Inc. v. Citibank, N. A. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Lanuto v. Constantine green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| INS. ASSN v. Dept. of Ins. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| McCain v. Koch green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Quill Corp. v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Heitkamp red | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Lamboy v. Gross green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Duffy v. Wetzler neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Crociata v. State Tax Commission neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Crociata v. State Tax Commission neutral | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| People v. McMurty neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Waterman green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| People v. Jackson neutral | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Gandolfi v. City of Yonkers green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.