Roth doctrine in New York

11 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1966–2016 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 (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Martin v. Geico Direct Insurancegreen nyappdiv · 2006 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016In opposition, the Brach/Roth defendants failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that they did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate before the Beth Din (see Martin v Geico Direct Ins., 31 AD3d 505, 506 [2006]; Lobel v Allstate Ins. 2016In opposition, the Brach/Roth defendants failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that they did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate before the Beth Din (see Martin v Geico Direct Ins., 31 AD3d 505, 506 [2006]; Lobel v Allstate Ins.	1	1
Lobel v. Allstate Insurancegreen nyappdiv · 2000 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016Co., 269 AD2d 502, 502 [2000]).	1	1
Davis v. Stategreen nyappdiv · 1976 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981The time for filing a claim is 90 days for prima facie tort (see Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 3) and presumably also for civil rights violations (see Court of Claims Act, §10, subd 3; see, also, Davis v State of New York, 84 Misc 2d 597, 600 , revd on other grounds 54 AD2d 126 ; US Code, tit 42, § 1983), although the latter may be subject to the six-month filing period in certain cases or even generally (see Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 4). 1981The time for filing a claim is 90 days for prima facie tort (see Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 3) and presumably also for civil rights violations (see Court of Claims Act, §10, subd 3; see, also, Davis v State of New York, 84 Misc 2d 597, 600 , revd on other grounds 54 AD2d 126 ; US Code, tit 42, § 1983), although the latter may be subject to the six-month filing period in certain cases or even generally (see Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 4).	1	1
Davis v. Stategreen nyclaimsct · 1975 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 2 sentences 1981The time for filing a claim is 90 days for prima facie tort (see Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 3) and presumably also for civil rights violations (see Court of Claims Act, §10, subd 3; see, also, Davis v State of New York, 84 Misc 2d 597, 600 , revd on other grounds 54 AD2d 126 ; US Code, tit 42, § 1983), although the latter may be subject to the six-month filing period in certain cases or even generally (see Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 4). 1981The time for filing a claim is 90 days for prima facie tort (see Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 3) and presumably also for civil rights violations (see Court of Claims Act, §10, subd 3; see, also, Davis v State of New York, 84 Misc 2d 597, 600 , revd on other grounds 54 AD2d 126 ; US Code, tit 42, § 1983), although the latter may be subject to the six-month filing period in certain cases or even generally (see Court of Claims Act, § 10, subd 4).	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 (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Rush v. Savchuk green scotus · 1980 2 sentences 1980Rush v Savchuk (supra) held that the Seider v Roth doctrine was an unconstitutional violation of due process where the defendant had no other contacts with the forum. 1980In Rush v Savchuk ( 444 US 320, 332 ), the United States Supreme Court makes an issue of the fact that the Seider v Roth doctrine erroneously shifted the mode of determining fairness from the defendants’ contact with the forum, to the plaintiff’s contact with the forum.	2	1980–1980
Mishkin v. New York green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 1966(Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 ; Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 ; Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502 .) In Memoirs (supra) Mr. Justice Bkexnan, writing the majority opinion for a badly divided court, clarified, summarized and appeared to limit the Roth doctrine. 1966(Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 ; Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 ; Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502 .) In Memoirs (supra) Mr. Justice Bkexnan, writing the majority opinion for a badly divided court, clarified, summarized and appeared to limit the Roth doctrine.	2	1966–1970
Ginzburg v. United States green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 1966(Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 ; Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 ; Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502 .) In Memoirs (supra) Mr. Justice Bkexnan, writing the majority opinion for a badly divided court, clarified, summarized and appeared to limit the Roth doctrine. 1966(Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 ; Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 ; Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502 .) In Memoirs (supra) Mr. Justice Bkexnan, writing the majority opinion for a badly divided court, clarified, summarized and appeared to limit the Roth doctrine.	2	1966–1970
Jacobellis v. Ohio green scotus · 1964 2 sentences 1970(Mr. Justice Stewart’s dissent in Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra.) Since the “hard core pornography” test is more permissive than the Both test, it would logically follow that consummated acts of sexual activity is not essential to the Roth test but that a graphic suggestion of erotic sexual conduct would suffice. 1970(Mr. Justice Stewart’s dissent in Jacobellis v. Ohio, supra.) Since the “hard core pornography” test is more permissive than the Both test, it would logically follow that consummated acts of sexual activity is not essential to the Roth test but that a graphic suggestion of erotic sexual conduct would suffice.	2	1970–1970
Matter of Wydra v. Brach neutral nyappdiv · 2016 1 sentence 2016For the reasons stated in our decision and order on a related appeal from an order dated August 13, 2015 (see Matter of Wydra v Brach, 144 AD3d 932 [2016] [decided herewith]), the Supreme Court should have denied the Brach/Roth respondents’ motions for leave to renew their prior cross motion to *874 vacate the 2012 award.	1	2016–2016
Roth v. United States green scotus · 1957 2 sentences 1990The standard in Roth (supra) was intended to apply in cases of governmental action to suppress or to prosecute and cannot be imposed upon the MPAA as its standard. 1990The standard in Roth (supra) was intended to apply in cases of governmental action to suppress or to prosecute and cannot be imposed upon the MPAA as its standard.	1	1990–1990
Seider v. Roth red ny · 1966 1 sentence 1982Plaintiffs commenced this action by utilizing the Seider v Roth doctrine ( 17 NY2d 111 ), attaching the automobile liability insurance policy issued by defendant Floyd’s insurer.	1	1982–1982
Block v. Chassin green nyappdiv · 1971 2 sentences 1981(See, e.g., Block v Chassin, 36 AD2d 703 .) Consequently, we find any malicious prosecution cause of action in the Roth claim barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity and hence also dismissible therefor. 1981(See, e.g., Block v Chassin, 36 AD2d 703 .) Consequently, we find any malicious prosecution cause of action in the Roth claim barred by absolute prosecutorial immunity and hence also dismissible therefor.	1	1981–1981
Westhill Exports, Ltd. v. Pope green ny · 1963 1 sentence 1981Giving plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn from the complaint (see Westhill Exports v Pope, 12 NY2d 491 ), we find that Special Term correctly denied defendant Roth’s motion to dismiss it.	1	1981–1981
Epstein v. Sirivejkul green nyappdiv · 1978 1 sentence 1980"Such an approach is forbidden by International Shoe and its progeny.” In the alternative plaintiff asks in the event of a dismissal of her lawsuit in New York, that defendants be ordered to accept service of process in the State of Florida and further that they agree to waive any defense based on the Statute of Limitations in the Florida action which has run out, citing Epstein v Sirivejkul ( 64 AD2d 216 , affd 48 NY2d 738 ) in support of this proposition.	1	1980–1980
Epstein v. Sirivejkul green ny · 1979 1 sentence 1980"Such an approach is forbidden by International Shoe and its progeny.” In the alternative plaintiff asks in the event of a dismissal of her lawsuit in New York, that defendants be ordered to accept service of process in the State of Florida and further that they agree to waive any defense based on the Statute of Limitations in the Florida action which has run out, citing Epstein v Sirivejkul ( 64 AD2d 216 , affd 48 NY2d 738 ) in support of this proposition.	1	1980–1980
Shaffer v. Heitner green scotus · 1977 1 sentence 1978Notwithstanding Shaffer v Heitner ( 433 US 186 ), the Seider v Roth doctrine is alive.	1	1978–1978
Baden v. Staples green ny · 1978 1 sentence 1978(See Baden v Staples, 45 NY2d 889 .) As the dissent accurately points out, plaintiffs in this malpractice action were not residents of New York at the time of the alleged malpractice.	1	1978–1978
People v. Bercowitz green nycrimct · 1970 2 sentences 1970(People v. Bercowitz, 61 Misc 2d 974 , supra; City of Youngstown v. De Loreto, 19 Ohio App. 2d 267 ; People v. G. 1970(People v. Bercowitz, 61 Misc 2d 974 , supra; City of Youngstown v. De Loreto, 19 Ohio App. 2d 267 ; People v. G.	1	1970–1970
Redrup v. New York green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 1970(Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, 506 , supra.) Redrup points out that the hard-core pornography test, consistently adopted by Justice Stewabt (Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 , 770-771 supra; Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 197 , supra; Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 499 , supra) is “ not [a] dissimilar standard ” to the Roth-Memoirs test. 1970(Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502, 506 , supra.) Redrup points out that the hard-core pornography test, consistently adopted by Justice Stewabt (Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767 , 770-771 supra; Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184, 197 , supra; Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463, 499 , supra) is “ not [a] dissimilar standard ” to the Roth-Memoirs test.	1	1970–1970
City of Youngstown v. Deloreto neutral ohioctapp · 1969 2 sentences 1970(People v. Bercowitz, 61 Misc 2d 974 , supra; City of Youngstown v. De Loreto, 19 Ohio App. 2d 267 ; People v. G. 1970(People v. Bercowitz, 61 Misc 2d 974 , supra; City of Youngstown v. De Loreto, 19 Ohio App. 2d 267 ; People v. G.	1	1970–1970
A Book Named \John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure\" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts" green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 1966(Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 ; Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 ; Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502 .) In Memoirs (supra) Mr. Justice Bkexnan, writing the majority opinion for a badly divided court, clarified, summarized and appeared to limit the Roth doctrine. 1966(Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 ; Ginzburg v. United States, 383 U. S. 463 ; Mishkin v. New York, 383 U. S. 502 .) In Memoirs (supra) Mr. Justice Bkexnan, writing the majority opinion for a badly divided court, clarified, summarized and appeared to limit the Roth doctrine.	1	1966–1966

Where else courts name it

NY 11 (1966–2016) WA 11 (1970–2017) MD 11 (1961–1981) CT 10 (1963–2020) CA 10 (1968–2016) IL 9 (1964–2020) MN 7 (1971–1972) WI 6 (1971–2017) TX 6 (1960–2015) FL 5 (1967–1971) OH 4 (1960–2014) NJ 3 (1964–1997) PA 3 (1967–1980) SC 3 (1970–1972) KS 3 (1966–1999) IA 2 (1987–1988) ND 2 (2006–2006) GA 2 (1974–1991) AK 2 (1970–2014) AZ 2 (1966–1986) AL 2 (2008–2013) NE 2 (1964–2006) MI 2 (1970–1972) IN 2 (1971–1984)

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