11 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1908–2017 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
A. Magnano Co. v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2003The United States Supreme Court has stated, “[collateral purposes or motives of a legislature in levying a tax of a kind within the reach of its lawful power are matters beyond the scope of judicial inquiry” (Magnano Co. v Hamilton, 292 US 40, 44 [1934]). 2003The United States Supreme Court has stated, "[c]ollateral purposes or motives of a legislature in levying a tax of a kind within the reach of its lawful power are matters beyond the scope of judicial inquiry" ( Magnano Co. v Hamilton , 292 US 40, 44 [1934]). | 2 | 2 |
Murray v. Brancatogreen2 sentences2017When a judge performs actions in carrying out duties mandated by the applicable statutes and regulations, those actions “fall within the scope of judicial immunity though done maliciously or corruptly” (Mu rray v Brancato, 290 NY 52, 57 [1943]; see Rosenstein v State of New York, 37 AD3d 208, 208-209 [2007]). 1983However, a Judge is not immune from liability if he acts to procure the publication of his opinion in unofficial reports (see Murray v Brancato, supra, p 57 ). | 1 | 2 |
Mireles v. Wacogreen1 sentence2017Judicial immunity, however, does not protect a judge who is not acting as a judge or who lacks jurisdiction supporting any authority for his or her actions (see Best v State of New York, 116 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2014]; see also Mireles v Waco, 502 US 9, 11-12 [1991]). | 1 | 1 |
Best v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Judicial immunity, however, does not protect a judge who is not acting as a judge or who lacks jurisdiction supporting any authority for his or her actions (see Best v State of New York, 116 AD3d 1198, 1199 [2014]; see also Mireles v Waco, 502 US 9, 11-12 [1991]). | 1 | 1 |
Rosenstein v. State of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2017When a judge performs actions in carrying out duties mandated by the applicable statutes and regulations, those actions “fall within the scope of judicial immunity though done maliciously or corruptly” (Mu rray v Brancato, 290 NY 52, 57 [1943]; see Rosenstein v State of New York, 37 AD3d 208, 208-209 [2007]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dazco Heating & Air Conditioning Corp. v. C.B.C. Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996Indus., 225 AD2d 578 ; see also, Matter of County of Rockland [Primiano Constr. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
In re the Arbitration between the County of Rockland & Primiano Construction Co.
green
1 sentence1994Co.], 51 NY2d 1, 6-7 ; see also, Matter of United Nations Dev. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In re the Arbitration between Board of Education, Florida Union Free School District & Florida Teachers Ass'n
green
1 sentence1986The remaining issue, regarding the collateral estoppel effect of the prior litigation, is outside the scope of judicial inquiry and is within the exclusive province of the arbitrator (see, Board of Educ. v Patchogue-Medford Congress, 48 NY2d 812 ; Matter of Board of Educ. [Florida Teachers Assn.], 104 AD2d 411 , affd 64 NY2d 822 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Matter of Bd. of Educ., Florida Union Free Sch. Dist.
neutral
1 sentence1986The remaining issue, regarding the collateral estoppel effect of the prior litigation, is outside the scope of judicial inquiry and is within the exclusive province of the arbitrator (see, Board of Educ. v Patchogue-Medford Congress, 48 NY2d 812 ; Matter of Board of Educ. [Florida Teachers Assn.], 104 AD2d 411 , affd 64 NY2d 822 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Board of Education of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District v. Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers
green
1 sentence1986The remaining issue, regarding the collateral estoppel effect of the prior litigation, is outside the scope of judicial inquiry and is within the exclusive province of the arbitrator (see, Board of Educ. v Patchogue-Medford Congress, 48 NY2d 812 ; Matter of Board of Educ. [Florida Teachers Assn.], 104 AD2d 411 , affd 64 NY2d 822 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v. Lopez
green
1 sentence1986Further, the doctrine of collateral estoppel prohibits a party from relitigating issues of fact and questions of law in a subsequent action which have previously been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction (see, Gramatan Home Investors Corp. v Lopez, 46 NY2d 481, 485 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Brunacini v. Loomis
neutral
1 sentence1961In a petition in a prior article 78 proceeding ( 13 Misc 2d 884 ), applicant swore unequivocally that he had endeavored to obtain such consents from those within 500 yards and had been refused. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGuire
green
1 sentence1920Whether the enactment is wise or unwise, whether it is based on sound economic theory, whether it is the best means to achieve the desired result, whether, in short, the legislative discretion within its prescribed limits should be exercised in a particular manner, are matters for the judgment of the legislature, and the earnest conflict of serious opinion does not suffice to bring them within the range of judicial cognizance.’ Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549, 569 .” The court, after reviewing- in detail many of the prior cases upholding the police power of | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp. v. Cooper
neutral
1 sentence1908(Hong Kong & S. Banking Corporation v. Cooper, 114 N. Y. 388 .)' It lias accordingly held in this State that a stipulation not to appeal to the Court of Appeals, in an appealable casé, will be enforced (Townsend v. Masterson, etc., Stone Dressing Co., 15 N. Y. 587 ), providing it is clear in its terms and leaves no doubt of the intention of the party so stipulating to cut himself off from the right, of appeal. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Townsend v. . the Masterson, C., Stone Dressing Co.
green
1 sentence1908(Hong Kong & S. Banking Corporation v. Cooper, 114 N. Y. 388 .)' It lias accordingly held in this State that a stipulation not to appeal to the Court of Appeals, in an appealable casé, will be enforced (Townsend v. Masterson, etc., Stone Dressing Co., 15 N. Y. 587 ), providing it is clear in its terms and leaves no doubt of the intention of the party so stipulating to cut himself off from the right, of appeal. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Matter of of N.Y., L. W.R.R. Co.
green
1 sentence1908Co., 98 N. Y. 447 .) They may by agreement limit the scope of judicial inquiry in a pending action and a stipulation to that effect is not unreasonable, or against good morals or public policy. | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.