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.
10 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1935–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Imani B.green2 sentences2018The Family Court correctly determined that the mother's statements were not admissible as evidence against the father absent any showing that the statements came within a statutory or common-law exception to the hearsay rule ( see Matter of Zaire D. [Benellie R.] , 90 AD3d 923 , 924; Matter of Imani B. , 27 AD3d 645 , 646; Morrissey v City of New York , 221 AD2d 607, 607 ). 2016The mother’s out-of-court statements constituted hearsay, and “were not admissible against the father in the absence of a showing that they came within a statutory or common-law exception to the hearsay rule” (Matter of Nicholas C. [Erika H. — Robert C.], 105 AD3d 1402 , 1402 [2013]; see Matter of Imani B., 27 AD3d 645, 646 [2006]). | 3 | 7 |
In re Nicholas C.green2 sentences2016The mother’s out-of-court statements constituted hearsay, and “were not admissible against the father in the absence of a showing that they came within a statutory or common-law exception to the hearsay rule” (Matter of Nicholas C. [Erika H. — Robert C.], 105 AD3d 1402 , 1402 [2013]; see Matter of Imani B., 27 AD3d 645, 646 [2006]). 2016The mother’s out-of-court statements constituted hearsay, and “were not admissible against the father in the absence of a showing that they came within a statutory or common-law exception to the hearsay rule” (Matter of Nicholas C. [Erika H. — Robert C.], 105 AD3d 1402 , 1402 [2013]; see Matter of Imani B., 27 AD3d 645, 646 [2006]). | 3 | 3 |
Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Educationgreen1 sentence2006We decline to consider the Law Guardian’s alternate theory that the mother’s out-of-court statements were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, since the theory was not advanced in the Family Court, where the father would have been able to counter the argument and the trial court would have been able to make factual determinations relevant to the issue of admissibility in the first instance (see People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125, 135 [1986]; see generally Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 545-546 [1983]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Nievesgreen1 sentence2006We decline to consider the Law Guardian’s alternate theory that the mother’s out-of-court statements were admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, since the theory was not advanced in the Family Court, where the father would have been able to counter the argument and the trial court would have been able to make factual determinations relevant to the issue of admissibility in the first instance (see People v Nieves, 67 NY2d 125, 135 [1986]; see generally Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 545-546 [1983]). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Jenkinsgreen1 sentence1996(Matter of Jenkins, supra, at 421.) The experts drew conflicting conclusions as to whether or not the statutory or common-law framework in Israel created an ability to enter into a common-law marriage in Israel. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2018The Family Court correctly determined that the mother's statements were not admissible as evidence against the father absent any showing that the statements came within a statutory or common-law exception to the hearsay rule ( see Matter of Zaire D. [Benellie R.] , 90 AD3d 923 , 924; Matter of Imani B. , 27 AD3d 645 , 646; Morrissey v City of New York , 221 AD2d 607, 607 ). 2006The mother’s statements were not admissible as evidence against the father absent any showing that the statements came within a statutory or common-law exception to the hearsay rule (see Morrissey v City of New York, 221 AD2d 607 [1995]). | 2 | 2006–2018 |
People v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2018Moreover, the court correctly determined that the mother's out-of-court statements were not admissible under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule ( see generally People v Johnson , 1 NY3d 302 , 306-307). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re Zaire D.
green
1 sentence2018The Family Court correctly determined that the mother's statements were not admissible as evidence against the father absent any showing that the statements came within a statutory or common-law exception to the hearsay rule ( see Matter of Zaire D. [Benellie R.] , 90 AD3d 923 , 924; Matter of Imani B. , 27 AD3d 645 , 646; Morrissey v City of New York , 221 AD2d 607, 607 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Zschernig v. Miller
green
1 sentence1996The court noted that despite the disagreement of the experts, it was the court’s function to determine the meaning and effect to be given to the statute and the court " 'must routinely construe foreign law in the resolution of controversies properly before [it]’ (Zschernig v Miller, 389 US 429 , 442 * * *).” (Supra, at 422.) The court then set out to define marriage as recognized in the State of New York, including recognition of common-law marriages, and compared the applicable provisions of the Israeli Code. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sweet v. Modern Woodmen of America
neutral
2 sentences1935App.] 171 id. 812; Sweet v. Modern Woodmen, 169 Wis. 462 ; 172 N. W. 143 .) (3) Those which hold that the statutory or common-law rule of presumption as to death is merely a rule of evidence, in which there is no vested right, and that parties by their agreement may change such rule without offending the public policy of the State in which the contract is enforced. 1935App.] 171 id. 812; Sweet v. Modern Woodmen, 169 Wis. 462 ; 172 N. W. 143 .) (3) Those which hold that the statutory or common-law rule of presumption as to death is merely a rule of evidence, in which there is no vested right, and that parties by their agreement may change such rule without offending the public policy of the State in which the contract is enforced. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Steen v. Modern Woodmen of America
green
2 sentences1935(Steen v. Modern Woodmen, 296 Ill. 104 ; 129 N. E. 546 ; 17 A. L. 1935(Steen v. Modern Woodmen, 296 Ill. 104 ; 129 N. E. 546 ; 17 A. L. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.