87 New York opinions name it 10 courts 1911–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barclay Knitwear Co. v. King'swear Enterprises Ltd.green2 sentences2022"Under New York law, in order to recover on its claim that the issuer wrongfully refused to honor its request to draw down on a letter of credit, the beneficiary must prove that it strictly complied with the terms of the letter of credit. 'The corollary to the rule of strict compliance is that the requirements in letters of credit must be explicit, and that all ambiguities are construed against the [issuer].' The reasoning is that '[s]ince the beneficiary must comply strictly with the requirements of the letter, it must know precisely and unequivocally what those requirements are'" ( BasicNet 2015“The corollary to the rule of strict *166 compliance is that the requirements in letters of credit must be explicit, and that all ambiguities are construed against the [issuer]” (Ma rino, 686 F2d at 115 [citation omitted]; see also Nissho Iwai Europe v Korea First Bank, 99 NY2d 115, 121-122 [2002]; Barclay Knitwear Co. v King’swear Enters., 141 AD2d 241, 246-247 [1st Dept 1988], lv denied 74 NY2d 605 [1989]). | 4 | 4 |
Nissho Iwai Europe PLC v. Korea First Bankgreen2 sentences2015“The corollary to the rule of strict *166 compliance is that the requirements in letters of credit must be explicit, and that all ambiguities are construed against the [issuer]” (Ma rino, 686 F2d at 115 [citation omitted]; see also Nissho Iwai Europe v Korea First Bank, 99 NY2d 115, 121-122 [2002]; Barclay Knitwear Co. v King’swear Enters., 141 AD2d 241, 246-247 [1st Dept 1988], lv denied 74 NY2d 605 [1989]). 2014“The corollary to the rule of strict compliance is that the requirements in letters of credit must be explicit, and that all ambiguities are construed against the [issuer]” (Marino, 686 F2d at 115 [internal quotations marks and citation omitted]; see also Nissho Iwai Europe v Korea First Bank, 99 NY2d 115, 121-122 [2002]; Barclay Knitwear Co. v King’swear Enters., 141 AD2d 241, 246-247 [1st Dept 1988], lv denied 74 NY2d 605 [1989]). | 3 | 3 |
O'Brien v. City of Syracusegreen2 sentences1999The proviso in CPLR 205 (a) that the toll is inapplicable when the prior action was dismissed on the merits is essentially a corollary of the principle of res judicata that “once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy” (O’Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [emphasis supplied]). 1999The proviso in CPLR 205 (a) that the toll is inapplicable when the prior action was dismissed on the merits is essentially a corollary of the principle of res judicata that "once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy" ( O'Brien v City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357 [emphasis supplied]). | 2 | 3 |
Spenard v. Gregware General Contractinggreen2 sentences2025Contr. , 248 AD2d at 869 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), and "[w]hen the defendant presents some evidence that the device furnished was adequate and properly placed and that the conduct of the plaintiff may be the sole proximate cause of his or her injuries, partial summary judgment on the issue of liability will be denied because factual issues exist" ( Ball v Cascade Tissue Group.-N.Y., Inc. , 36 AD3d 1187, 1188 [3d Dept 2007]). 2000Contr., 248 AD2d 868, 869 [citations omitted]). | 2 | 2 |
Giacona v. Marubeni Oceano (Panama) Corp.green2 sentences2004Additionally, the rules of construction applicable to a tariff would bar such an attempt (Giacona v Marubeni Oceano [Panama] Corp., 623 F Supp 1560, 1569 [SD Tex 1985] [“a tariff should be construed strictly against the drafter of the tariff, as a corollary to the rule that written instruments will be construed strictly against their drafters”]). 2004Additionally, the rules of construction applicable to a tariff would bar such an attempt ( Giacona v Marubeni Oceano [ Panama ] Corp. , 623 F Supp 1560, 1569 [SD Tex 1985] ["a tariff should be construed strictly against the drafter of the tariff, as a corollary to the rule that written instruments will be construed strictly against their drafters"]). | 2 | 2 |
Hecht v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2019The corollary to this rule is that an appellate court's reversal or modification of a judgment as an appealing party will not inure to the benefit of a nonappealing co-party unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment's subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties" ( id. at 61-62 [citations omitted]). 2019The corollary to this rule is that "an appellate court's scope of review with respect to an appellant, once an appeal has been timely taken, is generally limited to those parts of the judgment [or order] that have been appealed and that aggrieve the appealing party" ( Hecht v City of New York , 60 NY2d at 61 ). | 1 | 3 |
Ball v. Cascade Tissue Group-New York, Inc.green1 sentence2025Contr. , 248 AD2d at 869 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), and "[w]hen the defendant presents some evidence that the device furnished was adequate and properly placed and that the conduct of the plaintiff may be the sole proximate cause of his or her injuries, partial summary judgment on the issue of liability will be denied because factual issues exist" ( Ball v Cascade Tissue Group.-N.Y., Inc. , 36 AD3d 1187, 1188 [3d Dept 2007]). | 1 | 1 |
BasicNet S.P.A. v. CFP Services Ltd.green1 sentence2022"Under New York law, in order to recover on its claim that the issuer wrongfully refused to honor its request to draw down on a letter of credit, the beneficiary must prove that it strictly complied with the terms of the letter of credit. 'The corollary to the rule of strict compliance is that the requirements in letters of credit must be explicit, and that all ambiguities are construed against the [issuer].' The reasoning is that '[s]ince the beneficiary must comply strictly with the requirements of the letter, it must know precisely and unequivocally what those requirements are'" ( BasicNet | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Hilton v. Fahrenkopfgreen2 sentences2016Hilton v Fahrenkopf, 279 NY 49, 52-53 [1938] [“Each annual proceeding is separate and distinct from, every other”]; see also Vantage Petroleum,; Bay Isle Oil Co. v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Babylon, 61 NY2d 695, 698 [1984]), and this is a factor that supports my conclusion that each and every assessment must be challenged individually. 5 More fundamentally, however, the requirement implicit in article 7 that a taxpayer challenge the assessment for each year in which a refund is sought is primarily a corollary of the principle that taxes paid without protest — as were petitioner’s p 2016Hilton v Fahrenkopf, 279 NY 49, 52-53 [1938] ["Each annual proceeding is separate and distinct from every other"]; see also Vantage Petroleum Bay Isle Oil Co. v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Babylon, 61 NY2d 695, 698 [1984]), and this is a factor that supports my conclusion that each and every assessment must be challenged individually.5 More fundamentally, however, the requirement implicit in article 7 that a taxpayer challenge the assessment for each year in which a refund is sought is primarily a corollary of the principle that taxes paid without protest -- as were petitioner's prop | 1 | 1 |
Adrico Realty Corp. v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2016Importing Corp. v City of New York, 3 NY2d 418, 425 [1957]; Adrico Realty Corp. v City of New York, 250 NY 29, 32 [1928]). 2016Importing Corp. v City of New York, 3 NY2d 418, 425 [1957]; Adrico Realty Corp. v City of New York, 250 NY 29, 32 [1928]). | 1 | 1 |
| Vantage Petroleum, Bay Isle Oil Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Assessment Review of the Town of Babylongreen | 1 | 1 |
Mercury Machine Importing Corp. v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2016Importing Corp. v City of New York, 3 NY2d 418, 425 [1957]; Adrico Realty Corp. v City of New York, 250 NY 29, 32 [1928]). 2016Importing Corp. v City of New York, 3 NY2d 418, 425 [1957]; Adrico Realty Corp. v City of New York, 250 NY 29, 32 [1928]). | 1 | 1 |
Video Aid Corp. v. Town of Wallkillgreen2 sentences2016Hilton v Fahrenkopf, 279 NY 49, 52-53 [1938] [“Each annual proceeding is separate and distinct from, every other”]; see also Vantage Petroleum,; Bay Isle Oil Co. v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Babylon, 61 NY2d 695, 698 [1984]), and this is a factor that supports my conclusion that each and every assessment must be challenged individually. 5 More fundamentally, however, the requirement implicit in article 7 that a taxpayer challenge the assessment for each year in which a refund is sought is primarily a corollary of the principle that taxes paid without protest — as were petitioner’s p 2016Hilton v Fahrenkopf, 279 NY 49, 52-53 [1938] ["Each annual proceeding is separate and distinct from every other"]; see also Vantage Petroleum Bay Isle Oil Co. v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Babylon, 61 NY2d 695, 698 [1984]), and this is a factor that supports my conclusion that each and every assessment must be challenged individually.5 More fundamentally, however, the requirement implicit in article 7 that a taxpayer challenge the assessment for each year in which a refund is sought is primarily a corollary of the principle that taxes paid without protest -- as were petitioner's prop | 1 | 1 |
City of Rochester v. Chiarellagreen2 sentences2016Hilton v Fahrenkopf, 279 NY 49, 52-53 [1938] [“Each annual proceeding is separate and distinct from, every other”]; see also Vantage Petroleum,; Bay Isle Oil Co. v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Babylon, 61 NY2d 695, 698 [1984]), and this is a factor that supports my conclusion that each and every assessment must be challenged individually. 5 More fundamentally, however, the requirement implicit in article 7 that a taxpayer challenge the assessment for each year in which a refund is sought is primarily a corollary of the principle that taxes paid without protest — as were petitioner’s p 2016Hilton v Fahrenkopf, 279 NY 49, 52-53 [1938] ["Each annual proceeding is separate and distinct from every other"]; see also Vantage Petroleum Bay Isle Oil Co. v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Babylon, 61 NY2d 695, 698 [1984]), and this is a factor that supports my conclusion that each and every assessment must be challenged individually.5 More fundamentally, however, the requirement implicit in article 7 that a taxpayer challenge the assessment for each year in which a refund is sought is primarily a corollary of the principle that taxes paid without protest -- as were petitioner's prop | 1 | 1 |
| Andrews v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Abrams v. Berelsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Specialized Realty Services, LLC v. Town of Tuxedogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Levitt v. County of Suffolkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davi v. Occhinogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Board of Supervisors v. Aulisigreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Dylan C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Parker v. Blauvelt Volunteer Fire Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Gerdesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Broz v. Cellular Information Systems, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Fink v. . Finkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Estate of Ziolkowskigreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Estate of Jaccomagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arbutina v. Bahuleyangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Steyergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Continental Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Gregory Sackingergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pinaud v. Jamesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anthony Del Guzzi v. United States of America U.S. Parole Commission United States Marshal U.S. Attorney Generalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Leegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Banchgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Novoagreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ryan v. New York Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences1999Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 ). 1997Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 ). | 4 | 1995–1999 |
Wilson Sullivan Co. v. International Paper Makers Realty Corp.
green
2 sentences2022However, the corollary to that rule is that if, in exercising its power to revoke the agency, the principal has violated its contractual obligations, "it must respond to [the agent] in damages" ( Wilson Sullivan , 307 NY at 24-25 ). 2022However, the corollary to that rule is that if, in exercising its power to revoke the agency, the principal has violated its contractual obligations, "it must respond to [the agent] in damages" ( Wilson Sullivan , 307 NY at 24-25 ). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Fratello
green
2 sentences2014However, a corollary of this rule applies “when the jury, acting within its rightful province of determining credibility, weighing evidence and drawing justifiable inferences from proven facts, has an objective, rational basis for resolving beyond a reasonable doubt the contradictory inculpating and exculpating versions of the events given by the witness” (People v Fratello, 92 NY2d at 573-574 ). 2014However, a corollary of this rule applies “when the jury, acting within its rightful province of determining credibility, weighing evidence and drawing justifiable inferences from proven facts, has an objective, rational basis for resolving beyond a reasonable doubt the contradictory inculpating and exculpating versions of the events given by the witness” (People v Fratello, 92 NY2d at 573-574 ). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Hogan v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
neutral
2 sentences2010John v Andrews Inst, for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Win-burn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143, 152-155 ).” Again, the plaintiffs here did not take an appeal. 1983John v Andrews Inst. for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Winburn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143,152-155 ). | 2 | 1983–2010 |
In Re the Will of Winburn
green
2 sentences2010John v Andrews Inst, for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Win-burn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143, 152-155 ).” Again, the plaintiffs here did not take an appeal. 1983John v Andrews Inst. for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Winburn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143,152-155 ). | 2 | 1983–2010 |
John v. Andrews Institute for Girls
green
2 sentences2010John v Andrews Inst, for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Win-burn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143, 152-155 ).” Again, the plaintiffs here did not take an appeal. 1983John v Andrews Inst. for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Winburn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143,152-155 ). | 2 | 1983–2010 |
United States Printing & Lithograph Co. v. Powers
green
2 sentences2010John v Andrews Inst, for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Win-burn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143, 152-155 ).” Again, the plaintiffs here did not take an appeal. 1983John v Andrews Inst. for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Winburn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143,152-155 ). | 2 | 1983–2010 |
San Lucas v. Bornn & Co.
neutral
2 sentences2010John v Andrews Inst, for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Win-burn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143, 152-155 ).” Again, the plaintiffs here did not take an appeal. 1983John v Andrews Inst. for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Winburn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143,152-155 ). | 2 | 1983–2010 |
Kohlmetz v. Amdoursky
neutral
2 sentences2010John v Andrews Inst, for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Win-burn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143, 152-155 ).” Again, the plaintiffs here did not take an appeal. 1983John v Andrews Inst. for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Winburn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143,152-155 ). | 2 | 1983–2010 |
Bonat v. Crosswell
neutral
2 sentences2010John v Andrews Inst, for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Win-burn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143, 152-155 ).” Again, the plaintiffs here did not take an appeal. 1983John v Andrews Inst. for Girls, 192 NY 382, 386-389 , supra; Bonat v Crosswell, 241 App Div 230 ; Kohlmetz v Amdoursky, 227 App Div 758 ; San Lucas v Bornn & Co., 173 App Div 703 ; Orr v Wolff, 71 App Div 614 ) unless the judgment was rendered against parties having a united and inseverable interest in the judgment’s subject matter, which itself permits no inconsistent application among the parties (see Matter of Winburn, 270 NY 196, 198 ; United States Print. & Lithograph Co. v Powers, 233 NY 143,152-155 ). | 2 | 1983–2010 |
Beekman Hill Ass'n v. Chin
green
2 sentences2005(See Matter of Beekman Hill Assn. v Chin, 274 AD2d 161 [1st Dept 2000]; McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes §§ 97, 98.) A corollary rule is that all parts of a statute are to be harmonized with each other as well as with the general intent of the whole statute. 2005(See Matter of Beekman Hill Assn, v Chin, 274 AD2d 161 [1st Dept 2000]; McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes §§ 97, 98.) A corollary rule is that all parts of a statute are to be harmonized with each other as well as with the general intent of the whole statute. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Vincent v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1983Collateral estoppel is a corollary to the doctrine of res judicata; it permits in certain situations the determination of an issue of fact or law raised in a subsequent action by reference to a previous judgment on a different cause of action in which the same issue was necessarily raised and decided (Statter v Statter, 2 NY2d 668 ; Siegel, New York Practice, § 464, p 614; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 63:204, pp 208-209; cf. Ashe v Swenson, 397 US 436, 443 ).” As was written in Vincent v Thompson ( 50 AD2d 211, 217 ): “When collateral estoppel operates, certain questions actually litigated an 1976Inherent in the concept of collateral estoppel is the fairness of the process, to the end that a party should not be precluded from obtaining a full and fair hearing in a forum on his claim (cf. Read v Sacco, 49 AD2d 471, 474 ; Vincent v Thompson, 50 AD2d 211, 218 ). | 2 | 1976–1983 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences1983Collateral estoppel is a corollary to the doctrine of res judicata; it permits in certain situations the determination of an issue of fact or law raised in a subsequent action by reference to a previous judgment on a different cause of action in which the same issue was necessarily raised and decided (Statter v Statter, 2 NY2d 668 ; Siegel, New York Practice, § 464, p 614; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 63:204, pp 208-209; cf. Ashe v Swenson, 397 US 436, 443 ).” As was written in Vincent v Thompson ( 50 AD2d 211, 217 ): “When collateral estoppel operates, certain questions actually litigated an 1979Collateral estoppel is a corollary to the doctrine of res judicata; it permits in certain situations the determination of an issue of fact or law raised in a subsequent action by reference to a previous judgment on a different cause of action in which the same issue was necessarily raised and decided (Statter v Statter, 2 NY2d 668 ; Siegel, New York Practice, § 464, p 614; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 63:204, pp 208-209; cf. Ashe v Swenson, 397 US 436, 443 ). | 2 | 1979–1983 |
Statter v. Statter
green
2 sentences1983Collateral estoppel is a corollary to the doctrine of res judicata; it permits in certain situations the determination of an issue of fact or law raised in a subsequent action by reference to a previous judgment on a different cause of action in which the same issue was necessarily raised and decided (Statter v Statter, 2 NY2d 668 ; Siegel, New York Practice, § 464, p 614; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 63:204, pp 208-209; cf. Ashe v Swenson, 397 US 436, 443 ).” As was written in Vincent v Thompson ( 50 AD2d 211, 217 ): “When collateral estoppel operates, certain questions actually litigated an 1979Collateral estoppel is a corollary to the doctrine of res judicata; it permits in certain situations the determination of an issue of fact or law raised in a subsequent action by reference to a previous judgment on a different cause of action in which the same issue was necessarily raised and decided (Statter v Statter, 2 NY2d 668 ; Siegel, New York Practice, § 464, p 614; 9 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 63:204, pp 208-209; cf. Ashe v Swenson, 397 US 436, 443 ). | 2 | 1979–1983 |
People v. Ferraro
green
2 sentences1961It has been said that “ The right of a cross-examiner to use a witness ’ own prior statement in which he has given a contrary version of the purpose of testimonial impeachment and the corollary rule that such prior statements have no substantial or independent testimonial value are so firmly imbedded in our law of evidence that the citation of authority is scarcely required. (3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 1018; Matter of Roge v. Valentine, 280 N. Y. 268, 277 ; People v. Ferraro, 293 N. Y. 51, 56 ; 30 Corn. 1956The right of a cross-examiner to use a witness’ own prior statement in which he has given a contrary version for the purpose of testimonial impeachment and the corollary rule that such prior statements have no substantial or independent testimonial value are so firmly imbedded in our law of eAddence that the citation of authority is scarcely required. (3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 1018; Matter of Roge v. Valentine, 280 N. Y. 268, 277 ; People v. Ferraro, 293 N. Y. 51, 56 ; 30 Corn. | 2 | 1956–1961 |
Matter of Roge v. Valentine
green
2 sentences1961It has been said that “ The right of a cross-examiner to use a witness ’ own prior statement in which he has given a contrary version of the purpose of testimonial impeachment and the corollary rule that such prior statements have no substantial or independent testimonial value are so firmly imbedded in our law of evidence that the citation of authority is scarcely required. (3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 1018; Matter of Roge v. Valentine, 280 N. Y. 268, 277 ; People v. Ferraro, 293 N. Y. 51, 56 ; 30 Corn. 1956The right of a cross-examiner to use a witness’ own prior statement in which he has given a contrary version for the purpose of testimonial impeachment and the corollary rule that such prior statements have no substantial or independent testimonial value are so firmly imbedded in our law of eAddence that the citation of authority is scarcely required. (3 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 1018; Matter of Roge v. Valentine, 280 N. Y. 268, 277 ; People v. Ferraro, 293 N. Y. 51, 56 ; 30 Corn. | 2 | 1956–1961 |
Kenyon v. Farris
neutral
2 sentences1924The leading case to that effect in this country is Kenyon v. Farris ( 47 Conn. 510 ), in which the earlier English decisions are reviewed. 1911The leading case to that effect in this country is Kenyon v. Farris ( 47 Conn. 510 ), in which the earlier English decisions are reviewed. | 2 | 1911–1924 |
| Derby v. Bitan green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Rosenfeld v. A. H. Robins Co. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Schumer v. Holtzman green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Toman v. East River Management Corp. neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Friedman-Kien v. City of New York neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Howlett Ex Rel. Howlett v. Rose green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Pauk v. BD. OF TRS. OF THE CITY UNIV. OF NEW YORK green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Pauk v. Board of Trustees green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Pruchnowski v. Prudential Insurance neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Curtis v. Silvorili neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| General Stencils, Inc. v. Chiappa green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Flores green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Kemp green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| H. R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Baldi green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| In re Whitehead green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Quinlan v. Eastern Refractories Co. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Sengstack v. Sengstack green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Kush v. City of Buffalo green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Kriz v. Schum green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.