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 1909–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Antommarchigreen1 sentence2019Defendant contends that the court violated the rule in People v Antommarchi ( 80 NY2d 247, 250 [1992], rearg denied 81 NY2d 759 [1992]) when it conducted several sidebar conferences in his absence and that reversal is required with respect to two of those conferences. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. City of Cohoesgreen1 sentence2009That doctrine “is a rule of practice, an articulation of sound policy that, when an issue is once judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as Judges and courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction are concerned” (Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162, 165 [1975], rearg denied 37 NY2d 817 [1975]). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. . Scuttgreen1 sentence1909(Thomas v. Scutt, 127 N. Y. 133, 137; House v. Walch, 144 N. Y. 418, 421 ; Murdock v. Gould, 193 N. Y. 369 .) Mo well-considered casein this state sustains the rulings in question. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Kisoon
green
1 sentence2010IV As an alternative ground for affirming the Appellate Division’s order, defendant argues that the trial court violated the rule of People v O’Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 [1991]) and other cases (see People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129 [2007]; People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852 [2009]) by failing to give defense counsel meaningful notice of notes sent by the jury during its deliberations. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. O'Rama
green
1 sentence2010IV As an alternative ground for affirming the Appellate Division’s order, defendant argues that the trial court violated the rule of People v O’Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 [1991]) and other cases (see People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129 [2007]; People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852 [2009]) by failing to give defense counsel meaningful notice of notes sent by the jury during its deliberations. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Tabb
green
1 sentence2010IV As an alternative ground for affirming the Appellate Division’s order, defendant argues that the trial court violated the rule of People v O’Rama ( 78 NY2d 270 [1991]) and other cases (see People v Kisoon, 8 NY3d 129 [2007]; People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852 [2009]) by failing to give defense counsel meaningful notice of notes sent by the jury during its deliberations. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Havelka
green
1 sentence2008It is defendant’s position that under People v Havelka ( 45 NY2d 636 [1978]), the prosecution is afforded only one full opportunity to present evidence of a dispositive issue at a pretrial hearing, and that the court violated this rule by allowing the prosecution a second chance to introduce evidence of the girlfriend’s involvement in the drug trade, despite its availability at the time of the initial Hinton hearing. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Padela v. Rosen
green
1 sentence1999Co., 228 AD2d 468 ; Padela v Rosen & Weidberg, 200 AD2d 722 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Dawson v. Pavarini Construction Co.
neutral
1 sentence1999Co., 228 AD2d 468 ; Padela v Rosen & Weidberg, 200 AD2d 722 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
People v. Rodney E.
green
1 sentence1991Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment finding him guilty of violating his probation and sentencing him to 1-Vs to four years, defendant’s primary challenge is that the procedure followed by the court violated the rule recently formulated in People v Rodney E. ( 77 NY2d 672 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Bagley
green
1 sentence1990(See, United States v Bagley, 473 US 667, 682 .) Concur—Sullivan, J. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Vogelsang v. Coombe
green
1 sentence1990Regardless of the report’s failure to identify the money as a quarter or a half-dollar, petitioner was well aware of the charges against him (see, Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe, 105 AD2d 913, 914 , affd 66 NY2d 835 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1990While defendant claims the court violated the rule of Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83 ) by not permitting him to call the prosecutor to the stand, the prosecutor’s testimony was not "material” within the meaning of Brady and thus did not raise a Brady issue. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Vogelsang v. Coombe
green
1 sentence1990Regardless of the report’s failure to identify the money as a quarter or a half-dollar, petitioner was well aware of the charges against him (see, Matter of Vogelsang v Coombe, 105 AD2d 913, 914 , affd 66 NY2d 835 ). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Riley
neutral
1 sentence1964Even assuming that he knew of this essentially negative evidence and that his failure to offer it at the trial violated the rule that “It is the duty of a prosecutor to present to the trial jury all the material evidence of which he may become possessed ” (People v. Riley, 191 Misc. 888, 892 ), defendant has not borne the burden of proving that the failure of the District Attorney to present the evidence of the test induced or coerced his plea of guilty. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Murdock v. . Gould
green
1 sentence1909(Thomas v. Scutt, 127 N. Y. 133, 137; House v. Walch, 144 N. Y. 418, 421 ; Murdock v. Gould, 193 N. Y. 369 .) Mo well-considered casein this state sustains the rulings in question. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
House v. . Walch
neutral
1 sentence1909(Thomas v. Scutt, 127 N. Y. 133, 137; House v. Walch, 144 N. Y. 418, 421 ; Murdock v. Gould, 193 N. Y. 369 .) Mo well-considered casein this state sustains the rulings in question. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.