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.
13 New York opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Policano v. Herbertgreen2 sentences2026A "compelling justification [to overrule precedent] may arise when the Court's prior holding 'leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves' " ( Peque , NY2d at 194, quoting People v Taylor , 9 NY3d 129, 149 [2007]), or when " 'a preexisting rule, once thought defensible, no longer serves [*6]the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience' " ( id. , quoting Policano v Herbert , 7 NY3d 588, 604 [2006]). 2026A "compelling justification [to overrule precedent] may arise when the Court's prior holding 'leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves' " ( Peque , NY2d at 194, quoting People v Taylor , 9 NY3d 129, 149 [2007]), or when " 'a preexisting rule, once thought defensible, no longer serves [*6]the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience' " ( id. , quoting Policano v Herbert , 7 NY3d 588, 604 [2006]). | 6 | 6 |
People v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2026A "compelling justification [to overrule precedent] may arise when the Court's prior holding 'leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves' " ( Peque , NY2d at 194, quoting People v Taylor , 9 NY3d 129, 149 [2007]), or when " 'a preexisting rule, once thought defensible, no longer serves [*6]the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience' " ( id. , quoting Policano v Herbert , 7 NY3d 588, 604 [2006]). 2026A "compelling justification [to overrule precedent] may arise when the Court's prior holding 'leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves' " ( Peque , NY2d at 194, quoting People v Taylor , 9 NY3d 129, 149 [2007]), or when " 'a preexisting rule, once thought defensible, no longer serves [*6]the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience' " ( id. , quoting Policano v Herbert , 7 NY3d 588, 604 [2006]). | 5 | 6 |
People v. Pequegreen2 sentences2026"Such a compelling justification may arise when the Court's prior holding leads to an unworkable rule, or creates more questions than it resolves; adherence to a recent precedent involves collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience; or a preexisting rule, once thought defensible, no longer serves the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience" ( People v Peque , 22 NY3d 168, 194 [2013] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted], cert denied 574 US 840 [2014]). 2025In conducting this analysis, we often ask whether our "prior holding leads to an unworkable rule, or creates more questions than it resolves"; whether "adher[ing] to a recent precedent involves collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience"; and whether "a preexisting rule, once thought defensible, no longer serves the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience" ( People v Peque , 22 NY3d 168, 194 [2013] [internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted]). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Binggreen2 sentences2025We have also emphasized that "stare decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision, however recent and questionable" ( People v Bing , 76 NY2d 331, 338 [1990] [internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted]), and that while "a court should be slow to overrule its precedents, there is little reason to avoid doing so when persuaded by the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). 2025We have also emphasized that "stare decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision, however recent and questionable" ( People v Bing , 76 NY2d 331, 338 [1990] [internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted]), and that while "a court should be slow to overrule its precedents, there is little reason to avoid doing so when persuaded by the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
Helvering v. Hallockgreen2 sentences2023Adherence to precedent is unjustified when: (1) the prior holding “leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves” (People v Taylor, 9 NY3d 129, 149 [2007]); (2) it “ ‘colli[des] with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience’ ” (Hobson, 39 NY2d at 487, quoting Helvering v Hallock, 309 US 106, 119 [1940]); (3) subsequent controlling pronouncements have thrown the precedent into doubt so that it “no longer serves the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience” (Policano v Herbert, 7 NY 2013Such a compelling justification may arise when the Court’s prior holding “leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves” (Taylor, 9 NY3d at 149 ); adherence to a recent precedent “involves collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience” (People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 487 [1976], quoting Helvering v Hallock, 309 US 106, 119 [1940]); or “a preexisting rule, once thought defensible, no longer serves the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience” (Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d 58 | 2 | 2 |
Glidden Co. v. Zdanokyellow1 sentence2023Generally, “a court should ‘not . . . apply stare decisis as rigidly in constitutional as in nonconstitutional cases’ ” (Taylor at 149, quoting Glidden Co. v Zdanok, 370 US 530, 543 [1962]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. New York City Police Dept.green1 sentence2023Adherence to precedent is unjustified when: (1) the prior holding “leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves” (People v Taylor, 9 NY3d 129, 149 [2007]); (2) it “ ‘colli[des] with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience’ ” (Hobson, 39 NY2d at 487, quoting Helvering v Hallock, 309 US 106, 119 [1940]); (3) subsequent controlling pronouncements have thrown the precedent into doubt so that it “no longer serves the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience” (Policano v Herbert, 7 NY | 1 | 1 |
Matter of New York Civ. Liberties Union v. New York City Police Dept.green1 sentence2023Adherence to precedent is unjustified when: (1) the prior holding “leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves” (People v Taylor, 9 NY3d 129, 149 [2007]); (2) it “ ‘colli[des] with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience’ ” (Hobson, 39 NY2d at 487, quoting Helvering v Hallock, 309 US 106, 119 [1940]); (3) subsequent controlling pronouncements have thrown the precedent into doubt so that it “no longer serves the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience” (Policano v Herbert, 7 NY | 1 | 1 |
Broadnax v. Gonzalezgreen2 sentences2016In order to overturn past precedent there must be a compelling justification to do so, which may be found where such precedent "leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves" (id. at 149), or where "a preexisting rule, once thought defensible, no longer serves the ends of justice or withstands 'the cold light of logic and experience'" (Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d 588, 604 [2006], quoting Broadnax v Gonzalez, 2 NY3d 148, 156 [2004]). 2016In order to overturn past precedent there must be a compelling justification to do so, which may be found where such precedent “leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves” (id. at 149), or where “a preexisting rule, once thought defensible, no longer serves the ends of justice or withstands ‘the cold light of logic and experience’ ” (Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d 588, 604 [2006], quoting Broadnax v Gonzalez, 2 NY3d 148, 156 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hobsongreen2 sentences2013In determining the precedential effect to be given to a prior decision, this Court must consider “the exercise of restraint in overturning established well-developed doctrine and, on the other hand, the justifiable rejection of archaic and obsolete doctrine which has lost its touch with reality” (Hobson, 39 NY2d at 487 ). 2013Such a compelling justification may arise when the Court’s prior holding “leads to an unworkable rule, or . . . creates more questions than it resolves” (Taylor, 9 NY3d at 149 ); adherence to a recent precedent “involves collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience” (People v Hobson, 39 NY2d 479, 487 [1976], quoting Helvering v Hallock, 309 US 106, 119 [1940]); or “a preexisting rule, once thought defensible, no longer serves the ends of justice or withstands the cold light of logic and experience” (Policano v Herbert, 7 NY3d 58 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Monettegreen1 sentence2009Moreover, both the decision in Henry and the majority in this case set forth an unworkable test for determining when a defendant’s ability to pay must be considered—directing that such consideration is mandatory only when incarceration is not a “significant component” of a sentence without providing any indication of what component this Court would deem “significant.” In the absence of any statutory basis for this new test or any persuasive authority establishing that defendant’s ability to pay need not be considered when imposing restitution, I would hold that upon remittal, County Court must | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Freeman v. State of New York
green
1 sentence2026Plaintiffs argue that, because the Appellate Division is a statewide court divided into four departments for administrative convenience, it "should be governed by one set of rules and laws" — specifically, the set enshrined in the "holdings and reasoning of the First, Second and Fourth Departments on this issue." Yet, we have accounted for the [*4]department split by recognizing that, where untimely or defective disclosure of a treating physician is not willful, counsel's unfamiliarity with this Court's unique interpretation of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) is not enough to justify the drastic remedy | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Tucker
green
1 sentence2011While Tucker instructs a court not “to intrude into the jury’s deliberative process by speculating on how the jury perceived and weighed the evidence” ( 55 NY2d at 7 ) it does not mandate that we evaluate the elements of a crime charged in the abstract. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.