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 5 courts 1993–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, Inc.green2 sentences2011Here, the plaintiff and the appellants do not share a common domicile. 2 The second Neumeier principle oper ates to protect a defendant from exposure to liability under the law of the plaintiffs domicile where the conduct occurred in the defendant’s state of domicile, and conversely, to prevent an out-of-state defendant from avoiding liability imposed under the laws of the plaintiff’s state of domicile where the injury occurred in that state (see Cooney, 81 NY2d at 73 ; Neumeier, 31 NY2d at 128 ). 2011Conversely, if the law of the place where the accident occurred permits the injured passenger to recover, then the driver, “in the absence of special circumstances,” may not interpose a conflicting law of his state as a defense (id.; see also Cooney, 81 NY2d at 73 [“In essence, . . . the second Neumeier rule adopts a ‘place of injury’ test for true conflict guest statute cases”]). | 5 | 6 |
Dorsey v. Yantambwegreen1 sentence2001The second Neumeier rule applies when the parties are domiciled in different states, the situs of the tort is in a state in which a party is domiciled, and “the local law favors the respective domiciliary” (Cooney v Osgood Mach., supra, at 73; see, Dorsey v Yantambwe, 276 AD2d 108, 111 , lv denied 96 NY2d 712 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Neumeier v. Kuehner
green
2 sentences2011Here, the plaintiff and the appellants do not share a common domicile. 2 The second Neumeier principle oper ates to protect a defendant from exposure to liability under the law of the plaintiffs domicile where the conduct occurred in the defendant’s state of domicile, and conversely, to prevent an out-of-state defendant from avoiding liability imposed under the laws of the plaintiff’s state of domicile where the injury occurred in that state (see Cooney, 81 NY2d at 73 ; Neumeier, 31 NY2d at 128 ). 2004Because the parties are domiciliaries of different states and the place of the tortious conduct is plaintiff's state of domicile, so too would the Court agree with plaintiff that under the second Neumeier rule , the law of the place of the tort would govern ( Neumeier v. Kuehner , supra , 31 N.Y.2d, at 128 ). | 5 | 1993–2011 |