punishment violation in New York

14 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1903–2005 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Walkergreen ny · 1993 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997The statutory provision is, in effect, ameliorative in nature in that, in place and instead of incarceration (clearly the harshest punishment authorized for this offense), a defendant may be directed to comply with reasonable conditions attendant to a sentence of probation (a reduction in the punishment imposed). "[T]he amelioration doctrine dictates that the punishment standard at the time of sentencing should guide the sentence [citation omitted].” (People v Walker, 81 NY2d 661, 666 [1993].) Again, the statu-, tory amendment was enacted and made effective prior to the date the defendant was	1	1
Matter of Daviesgreen ny · 1901 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1922–1922 1 sentence 1922(Matter of Davies, 168 N. Y. 89, 96, 101 .) That statute was enacted to prevent the formation and maintenance of unlawful combinations in restraint of trade and to prevent the creation of monopolies “ in the manufacture, production or sale in this State of any article or commodity of common use.” Section 341 prescribed the punishment for the violation of section 340.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Oliver green ny · 1956 2 sentences 2005The Court discussed retroactivity and set forth the following principles: 15 “When, between the time a person commits a criminal act and the time of sentencing, a criminal statute is repealed or a penalty reduced because of a changed view regarding the gravity of the crime, the amelioration doctrine dictates that the punishment standard at the time of sentencing should guide the sentence (People v Oliver, 1 NY2d 152 ). 1993When, between the time a person commits a criminal act and the time of sentencing, a criminal statute is repealed or a penalty reduced because of a changed view regarding the gravity of the crime, the amelioration doctrine dictates that the punishment standard at the time of sentencing should guide the sentence (People v Oliver, 1 NY2d 152 ).	2	1993–2005
Brodbine v. Inhabitants of Revere green mass · 1903 2 sentences 1943(Brodbine v. Inhabitants of Revere, 182 Mass. 598 , 66 N. E. 607 .) ” The defendant relies strongly on the case of People v. Ryan ( 267 N. Y. 133 ). 1943(Brodbine v. Inhabitants of Revere, 182 Mass. 598 , 66 N. E. 607 .) ” The defendant relies strongly on the case of People v. Ryan ( 267 N. Y. 133 ).	2	1934–1943
People ex rel. Lonschein v. Warden of Queens House of Detention for Men neutral nysupct · 1964 1 sentence 1970Lonschein [Mencher] v. Warden of Queens House of Detention for Men, 43 Misc 2d 109, 112-113 , affd. 15 N Y 2d 663; People ex rel.	1	1970–1970
People v. Mailman neutral ny · 1944 1 sentence 1948The Court of Appeals held (p. 50): ‘ ‘ The maximum penalty imposed by the State statute —■ which we held valid in People v. Mailman ( 293 N. Y. 887 ) — is a $25 fine and five- days in jail, whereas under the local law such violations may be punished by a larger fine, longer imprisonment and other penalties such as forfeiture of licenses, if any, issued by the city.	1	1948–1948
People v. Adduci neutral nynycmagct · 1941 1 sentence 1947(People v. Adduci, 176 Misc. 697 ; People v. Marcello, 25 N. Y.	1	1947–1947
People v. Ryan green ny · 1935 1 sentence 1943(Brodbine v. Inhabitants of Revere, 182 Mass. 598 , 66 N. E. 607 .) ” The defendant relies strongly on the case of People v. Ryan ( 267 N. Y. 133 ).	1	1943–1943
Prigg v. Pennsylvania green · 1842 1 sentence 1935The court in that case quoted from Prigg v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ( 16 Pet. 539, 617 ) as follows; “ If Congress have a constitutional power to regulate a particular subject, and they do actually regulate it in a given manner, and in a certain form, it cannot be that the State Legislatures have a right' to interfere, and, as it were, by way of complement to the legislation of Congress, to prescribe additional regulations, and what they may deem auxiliary provisions for the same purpose.	1	1935–1935
Easton v. Iowa green · 1903 1 sentence 1935Bank, supra.) In Easton v. Iowa ( 188 U. S. 220 ) it was held that, so far as the Iowa Code attempted to prohibit National banks from receiving deposits when insolvent and prescribe a punishment for a violation of such prohibition by any officer or agent thereof, it was invalid as an attempt to control and regulate the business operations of National banks.	1	1935–1935
United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. green · 1921 1 sentence 1927C. 592; cf. U. S. v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81 ).	1	1927–1927
Martin v. Herzog green ny · 1920 1 sentence 1926In so doing he followed the rule laid down in Martin v. Herzog ( 228 N. Y. 164 ).	1	1926–1926
People v. Untermyer green · 1912 1 sentence 1916(See People v. Untermyer, 153 App. Div. 176 .) The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.	1	1916–1916
Lehman v. Clark green ill · 1898 1 sentence 1903The act is extremely specific- and comprehensive and has been declared by the Supreme Court of Illinois to constitute a complete code “ for insurance corporations of the character of the Northwestern Company.” Lehman v. Clark, 174 Ill. 279 .	1	1903–1903

Where else courts name it

TX 1386 (1920–2026) CA 50 (1925–2023) OH 19 (1971–2024) NY 14 (1903–2005) AL 13 (1919–2015) IL 12 (1916–2007) KY 10 (1938–2022) LA 9 (1939–2014) TN 9 (1949–2000) NJ 8 (1953–2021) NC 8 (1921–1985) PA 7 (1917–2018) GA 7 (1910–2010) WA 7 (1940–2024) IA 6 (1859–2018) MO 6 (1911–2013) NM 6 (1916–2020) FL 6 (1917–2013) OK 4 (1921–2006) IN 4 (1897–2004) MA 4 (1990–2019) KS 4 (1894–2020) MS 4 (1885–1985) AZ 3 (1966–1978) MI 3 (2007–2025) NE 3 (1909–1980) WI 3 (1913–2017) VA 2 (1984–2014) OR 2 (1919–1960) DE 2 (1964–1984) MT 2 (1959–2006) AK 2 (1985–2022) CO 2 (2004–2007) MD 2 (1987–2010) AR 2 (1921–1946) CT 2 (2009–2018) UT 2 (1987–1997) SD 2 (1893–2015) MN 2 (1970–2002)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check