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.
9 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1925–2024 1 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. Outleygreen1 sentence2024The court conducted an appropriate inquiry and provided defendant with an opportunity to dispute the factual basis for the alleged violation (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]; People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714, 716 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Albergottigreen1 sentence2024Defendant’s claim that the sentencing court conducted an inadequate inquiry into his violation of plea conditions before imposing an enhanced sentence, to the degree -1- -2- No. 40 “readily discernible from the hearing transcript” (People v Albergotti, 17 NY3d 748, 750 [2011]), is without merit. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Valenciagreen1 sentence2024The court conducted an appropriate inquiry and provided defendant with an opportunity to dispute the factual basis for the alleged violation (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713 [1993]; People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714, 716 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
Rios v. Rockwell International Corp.green1 sentence2016Corp., 268 AD2d 279, 280 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
Omansky v. Whitacregreen1 sentence2010We decline to consider this argument inasmuch as it is made for the first time on appeal (see Omansky v Whitacre, 55 AD3d 373, 374 [2008]). . | 1 | 1 |
Perez v. Radar Realtygreen1 sentence2010Chow testified that he made no attempt to read or to obtain assistance in reading the label; accordingly, any purported inadequacies in the product’s labeling were not a substantial factor in bringing about the injury (see Perez v Radar Realty, 34 AD3d 305, 306 [2006]; Sosna v American Home Prods., 298 AD2d 158 [2002]; Guadalupe v Drackett Prods. | 1 | 1 |
Polimeni v. Minolta Corp.green1 sentence2006Co., 183 AD2d 64 [1992]). “[I]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact” (Montufar v Shiva Automation Serv., 256 AD2d 607, 608 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Polimeni v Minolta Corp., 227 AD2d 64, 67 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
Montufar v. Shiva Automation Servicegreen1 sentence2006Co., 183 AD2d 64 [1992]). “[I]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact” (Montufar v Shiva Automation Serv., 256 AD2d 607, 608 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Polimeni v Minolta Corp., 227 AD2d 64, 67 [1997]). | 1 | 1 |
Hamilton v. Hardygreen1 sentence1987Corp., 235 Kan 387, 681 P2d 1038, 1057 [1984], cert denied 469 US 965 , 105 S Ct 365 , supra; Seley v Searle & Co., 67 Ohio St 2d 192, 423 NE2d 831, 839 [1981], supra; Hamilton v Hardy, 37 Colo App 375, 549 P2d 1099, 1109 [1976], supra.) Once a plaintiff establishes that an inadequate warning has been given, a presumption arises that the inadequacy was a proximate cause of the pharmaceutical item in question having been prescribed or continued. | 1 | 1 |
Wooderson v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.green1 sentence1987Corp., 235 Kan 387, 681 P2d 1038, 1057 [1984], cert denied 469 US 965 , 105 S Ct 365 , supra; Seley v Searle & Co., 67 Ohio St 2d 192, 423 NE2d 831, 839 [1981], supra; Hamilton v Hardy, 37 Colo App 375, 549 P2d 1099, 1109 [1976], supra.) Once a plaintiff establishes that an inadequate warning has been given, a presumption arises that the inadequacy was a proximate cause of the pharmaceutical item in question having been prescribed or continued. | 1 | 1 |
Seley v. G. D. Searle & Co.green2 sentences1987Corp., 235 Kan 387, 681 P2d 1038, 1057 [1984], cert denied 469 US 965 , 105 S Ct 365 , supra; Seley v Searle & Co., 67 Ohio St 2d 192, 423 NE2d 831, 839 [1981], supra; Hamilton v Hardy, 37 Colo App 375, 549 P2d 1099, 1109 [1976], supra.) Once a plaintiff establishes that an inadequate warning has been given, a presumption arises that the inadequacy was a proximate cause of the pharmaceutical item in question having been prescribed or continued. 1987(Seley v Searle & Co., 67 Ohio St 2d 192, 423 NE2d 831, 838 , supra.) This presumption may then be rebutted by affirmative evidence introduced by the defendant showing that even if adequately informed, the physician would still have prescribed the item. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Liriano v. Hobart Corp.
green
1 sentence2016With respect to the plaintiff’s inadequate warning claim, the manufacturer failed to establish, prima facie, that it had adequately warned users of the hazards posed by operating the lift without the cover in place or, more broadly, the dangers of placing a hand or other body part in the hole while operating the lift (see Liriano v Hobart Corp., 92 NY2d at 239-242 ; cf. Rios v Rockwell Intl. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence2010Chow testified that he made no attempt to read or to obtain assistance in reading the label; accordingly, any purported inadequacies in the product’s labeling were not a substantial factor in bringing about the injury (see Perez v Radar Realty, 34 AD3d 305, 306 [2006]; Sosna v American Home Prods., 298 AD2d 158 [2002]; Guadalupe v Drackett Prods. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.
green
1 sentence2007Accordingly, triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the alleged defective design of the harness, the alleged inadequate warnings, or both, was a substantial factor in causing plaintiffs injuries (see id. [“Because questions concerning what is foreseeable and what is normal may be the subject of varying inferences . . . these issues generally are for the fact finder to resolve”]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Johnson v. Johnson Chemical Co.
green
1 sentence2006Co., 183 AD2d 64 [1992]). “[I]n all but the most unusual circumstances, the adequacy of a warning is a question of fact” (Montufar v Shiva Automation Serv., 256 AD2d 607, 608 [1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]; Polimeni v Minolta Corp., 227 AD2d 64, 67 [1997]). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
People v. Hicks
green
1 sentence2000By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve his challenges to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Tuper, 256 AD2d 636 ) and his knowing waiver of an insanity defense (see, People v Hicks, 201 AD2d 831, 832 , Iv denied 83 NY2d 911 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Tuper
green
1 sentence2000By failing to move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve his challenges to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Tuper, 256 AD2d 636 ) and his knowing waiver of an insanity defense (see, People v Hicks, 201 AD2d 831, 832 , Iv denied 83 NY2d 911 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Kennedy v. United States
green
2 sentences1987Corp., 235 Kan 387, 681 P2d 1038, 1057 [1984], cert denied 469 US 965 , 105 S Ct 365 , supra; Seley v Searle & Co., 67 Ohio St 2d 192, 423 NE2d 831, 839 [1981], supra; Hamilton v Hardy, 37 Colo App 375, 549 P2d 1099, 1109 [1976], supra.) Once a plaintiff establishes that an inadequate warning has been given, a presumption arises that the inadequacy was a proximate cause of the pharmaceutical item in question having been prescribed or continued. 1987Corp., 235 Kan 387, 681 P2d 1038, 1057 [1984], cert denied 469 US 965 , 105 S Ct 365 , supra; Seley v Searle & Co., 67 Ohio St 2d 192, 423 NE2d 831, 839 [1981], supra; Hamilton v Hardy, 37 Colo App 375, 549 P2d 1099, 1109 [1976], supra.) Once a plaintiff establishes that an inadequate warning has been given, a presumption arises that the inadequacy was a proximate cause of the pharmaceutical item in question having been prescribed or continued. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence1981Defendant moved to suppress the admissions made in the written statements based on an inadequate waiver of his Miranda rights (Miranda u Arizona, 384 US 436 ). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Moran v. Sturges
green
1 sentence1925The defendant argues that sale at public auction will be an inadequate test of value, for the buyer will take subject to maritime liens which may be secret and unknown (Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co., 254 U. S. 1, 12 ; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 256 ). | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co.
green
1 sentence1925The defendant argues that sale at public auction will be an inadequate test of value, for the buyer will take subject to maritime liens which may be secret and unknown (Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Co. v. Seaboard Fisheries Co., 254 U. S. 1, 12 ; Moran v. Sturges, 154 U. S. 256 ). | 1 | 1925–1925 |
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.