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 6 courts 1910–2024 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. Sandovalgreen1 sentence2024Under Sandoval, a trial court may “make an advance ruling as to the use by the prosecution of prior convictions or proof of the prior commission of specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts for the purpose of impeaching a defendant’s credibility” ( 34 NY2d at 374 [internal citations omitted]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Wheelergreen1 sentence2007Under these circumstances, we find defendant’s self-serving affidavit, without more, insufficient to satisfy his burden and overcome “the presumptions of the validity and regularity of the previous felony conviction []” (id. at 16; see People v Wheeler, 7 AD3d 281, 281 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 683 [2004]). | 1 | 1 |
Tiborsky v. Martorellagreen1 sentence2004(See, Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp., 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]; Tiborsky v Martorella, 188 AD2d 795, 796 [3d Dept 1992]; Levande v Dines, 153 AD2d 671 [2d Dept 1989]; Fraylich v Maimonides Hosp., 251 AD2d 251 [1st Dept 1998]; Luce v State of New York, 266 AD2d 877 [4th Dept 1999].) In Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp. ( 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]), for example, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that there was no violation of any ethical or legal proscription occasioned by the trial testimony of a treating physician, who was called | 1 | 1 |
Chaffin v. Stynchcombegreen1 sentence1980See also Jenkins v Anderson ( 447 US 231, 236 ) as to a choice “ ‘that has the effect of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights.’ ” Furthermore, public policy, which must be considered in determining whether the “imposition of these difficult choices” is constitutional (see Chaffin v Stynchcombe, 412 US 17, 31 ), 8 supports constitutionality herein, for the prompt conclusion of child abuse proceedings is essential to child welfare. | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Andersongreen1 sentence1980See also Jenkins v Anderson ( 447 US 231, 236 ) as to a choice “ ‘that has the effect of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights.’ ” Furthermore, public policy, which must be considered in determining whether the “imposition of these difficult choices” is constitutional (see Chaffin v Stynchcombe, 412 US 17, 31 ), 8 supports constitutionality herein, for the prompt conclusion of child abuse proceedings is essential to child welfare. | 1 | 1 |
Cohen v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1968This conclusion is correct; the privilege against self incrimination is violated whenever a criminal defendant is compelled to take the stand and claim his privilege, whether at the behest of the prosecution or a codefendant (United States v. Housing Foundation of America, 176 F. 2d 665, 666 ; 8 Wigmore, Evidence [McNaughton rev. ed.], § 2268, p. 410; see Cohen v. United States, 363 F. 2d 321, 328 , cert. den. 385 U. S. 957 ; United States v. Echeles, 352 F. 2d 892, 897 ; People v. Hannon, 50 Misc 2d 297, 301 ; People v. Krugman, 44 Misc 2d 48, 51 ). | 1 | 1 |
Benjamin Cohen v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1968This conclusion is correct; the privilege against self incrimination is violated whenever a criminal defendant is compelled to take the stand and claim his privilege, whether at the behest of the prosecution or a codefendant (United States v. Housing Foundation of America, 176 F. 2d 665, 666 ; 8 Wigmore, Evidence [McNaughton rev. ed.], § 2268, p. 410; see Cohen v. United States, 363 F. 2d 321, 328 , cert. den. 385 U. S. 957 ; United States v. Echeles, 352 F. 2d 892, 897 ; People v. Hannon, 50 Misc 2d 297, 301 ; People v. Krugman, 44 Misc 2d 48, 51 ). | 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. Owens
green
2 sentences1978(People v Owens, 22 NY2d 93 ; People v Pollock, 21 NY2d 206 ; People v Paulino, 60 AD2d 769 .) As the Court of Appeals held in People v Owens (supra, p 97 ): "the privilege against self incrimination is violated whenever a criminal defendant is compelled to take the stand and claim his privilege, whether at the behest of the prosecution or a codefendant”. 1978(People v Owens, 22 NY2d 93 ; People v Pollock, 21 NY2d 206 ; People v Paulino, 60 AD2d 769 .) As the Court of Appeals held in People v Owens (supra, p 97 ): "the privilege against self incrimination is violated whenever a criminal defendant is compelled to take the stand and claim his privilege, whether at the behest of the prosecution or a codefendant”. | 2 | 1978–1986 |
Fraylich v. Maimonides Hospital
neutral
1 sentence2004(See, Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp., 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]; Tiborsky v Martorella, 188 AD2d 795, 796 [3d Dept 1992]; Levande v Dines, 153 AD2d 671 [2d Dept 1989]; Fraylich v Maimonides Hosp., 251 AD2d 251 [1st Dept 1998]; Luce v State of New York, 266 AD2d 877 [4th Dept 1999].) In Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp. ( 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]), for example, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that there was no violation of any ethical or legal proscription occasioned by the trial testimony of a treating physician, who was called | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Luce v. State
green
1 sentence2004(See, Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp., 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]; Tiborsky v Martorella, 188 AD2d 795, 796 [3d Dept 1992]; Levande v Dines, 153 AD2d 671 [2d Dept 1989]; Fraylich v Maimonides Hosp., 251 AD2d 251 [1st Dept 1998]; Luce v State of New York, 266 AD2d 877 [4th Dept 1999].) In Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp. ( 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]), for example, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that there was no violation of any ethical or legal proscription occasioned by the trial testimony of a treating physician, who was called | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Zimmerman v. Jamaica Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004(See, Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp., 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]; Tiborsky v Martorella, 188 AD2d 795, 796 [3d Dept 1992]; Levande v Dines, 153 AD2d 671 [2d Dept 1989]; Fraylich v Maimonides Hosp., 251 AD2d 251 [1st Dept 1998]; Luce v State of New York, 266 AD2d 877 [4th Dept 1999].) In Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp. ( 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]), for example, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that there was no violation of any ethical or legal proscription occasioned by the trial testimony of a treating physician, who was called 2004(See, Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp., 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]; Tiborsky v Martorella, 188 AD2d 795, 796 [3d Dept 1992]; Levande v Dines, 153 AD2d 671 [2d Dept 1989]; Fraylich v Maimonides Hosp., 251 AD2d 251 [1st Dept 1998]; Luce v State of New York, 266 AD2d 877 [4th Dept 1999].) In Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp. ( 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]), for example, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that there was no violation of any ethical or legal proscription occasioned by the trial testimony of a treating physician, who was called | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Levande v. Dines
green
1 sentence2004(See, Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp., 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]; Tiborsky v Martorella, 188 AD2d 795, 796 [3d Dept 1992]; Levande v Dines, 153 AD2d 671 [2d Dept 1989]; Fraylich v Maimonides Hosp., 251 AD2d 251 [1st Dept 1998]; Luce v State of New York, 266 AD2d 877 [4th Dept 1999].) In Zimmerman v Jamaica Hosp. ( 143 AD2d 86 [2d Dept 1988], lv denied 73 NY2d 702 [1988]), for example, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that there was no violation of any ethical or legal proscription occasioned by the trial testimony of a treating physician, who was called | 1 | 2004–2004 |
New Jersey v. Portash
green
1 sentence2000In New Jersey v Portash ( 440 US 450 [1979]), the Supreme Court held that the threatened use of defendant’s immunized Grand Jury testimony for impeachment purposes should the defendant take the stand was such an error, requiring reversal without resort to a harmless error analysis even though the defendant did not take the stand. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
People v. Bornholdt
green
1 sentence1986But there must be a showing of intention to call the codefendant as a witness and a need to do so; the mere statement of intention is hardly sufficient unless the circumstances indicate sincerity of intention and reasonable need.” (People v Owens, supra, pp 97-98 .) On the issue of severance "The Court of Appeals * * * in People v Bornholdt ( 33 NY2d 75 , cert den sub nom. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Westchester Rockland Newspapers, Inc. v. Leggett
green
1 sentence1980In fact, in a recent decision, Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Leggett ( 48 NY2d 430, 441 ), which concerned the closure of a courtroom during a competency hearing, the Court of Appeals while stating that evidence going to defendant’s competency “would ordinarily reveal little or nothing about his possible guilt of the crimes charged”, impliedly recognized that there could be situations where the facts surrounding defendant’s guilt might come into play. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Paulino
neutral
1 sentence1978(People v Owens, 22 NY2d 93 ; People v Pollock, 21 NY2d 206 ; People v Paulino, 60 AD2d 769 .) As the Court of Appeals held in People v Owens (supra, p 97 ): "the privilege against self incrimination is violated whenever a criminal defendant is compelled to take the stand and claim his privilege, whether at the behest of the prosecution or a codefendant”. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People v. Pollock
green
1 sentence1978(People v Owens, 22 NY2d 93 ; People v Pollock, 21 NY2d 206 ; People v Paulino, 60 AD2d 769 .) As the Court of Appeals held in People v Owens (supra, p 97 ): "the privilege against self incrimination is violated whenever a criminal defendant is compelled to take the stand and claim his privilege, whether at the behest of the prosecution or a codefendant”. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
United States v. Housing Foundation of America, Inc.
green
1 sentence1968This conclusion is correct; the privilege against self incrimination is violated whenever a criminal defendant is compelled to take the stand and claim his privilege, whether at the behest of the prosecution or a codefendant (United States v. Housing Foundation of America, 176 F. 2d 665, 666 ; 8 Wigmore, Evidence [McNaughton rev. ed.], § 2268, p. 410; see Cohen v. United States, 363 F. 2d 321, 328 , cert. den. 385 U. S. 957 ; United States v. Echeles, 352 F. 2d 892, 897 ; People v. Hannon, 50 Misc 2d 297, 301 ; People v. Krugman, 44 Misc 2d 48, 51 ). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
United States v. Julius L. Echeles
green
1 sentence1968This conclusion is correct; the privilege against self incrimination is violated whenever a criminal defendant is compelled to take the stand and claim his privilege, whether at the behest of the prosecution or a codefendant (United States v. Housing Foundation of America, 176 F. 2d 665, 666 ; 8 Wigmore, Evidence [McNaughton rev. ed.], § 2268, p. 410; see Cohen v. United States, 363 F. 2d 321, 328 , cert. den. 385 U. S. 957 ; United States v. Echeles, 352 F. 2d 892, 897 ; People v. Hannon, 50 Misc 2d 297, 301 ; People v. Krugman, 44 Misc 2d 48, 51 ). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
People v. Krugman
neutral
1 sentence1968This conclusion is correct; the privilege against self incrimination is violated whenever a criminal defendant is compelled to take the stand and claim his privilege, whether at the behest of the prosecution or a codefendant (United States v. Housing Foundation of America, 176 F. 2d 665, 666 ; 8 Wigmore, Evidence [McNaughton rev. ed.], § 2268, p. 410; see Cohen v. United States, 363 F. 2d 321, 328 , cert. den. 385 U. S. 957 ; United States v. Echeles, 352 F. 2d 892, 897 ; People v. Hannon, 50 Misc 2d 297, 301 ; People v. Krugman, 44 Misc 2d 48, 51 ). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
People v. Hannon
neutral
1 sentence1968This conclusion is correct; the privilege against self incrimination is violated whenever a criminal defendant is compelled to take the stand and claim his privilege, whether at the behest of the prosecution or a codefendant (United States v. Housing Foundation of America, 176 F. 2d 665, 666 ; 8 Wigmore, Evidence [McNaughton rev. ed.], § 2268, p. 410; see Cohen v. United States, 363 F. 2d 321, 328 , cert. den. 385 U. S. 957 ; United States v. Echeles, 352 F. 2d 892, 897 ; People v. Hannon, 50 Misc 2d 297, 301 ; People v. Krugman, 44 Misc 2d 48, 51 ). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
McCoy v. Munro
neutral
1 sentence1910McCoy v. Munro, 76 App. Div. 435, 437 , 78 N. Y. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
McCoy v. Munro
neutral
1 sentence1910McCoy v. Munro, 76 App. Div. 435, 437 , 78 N. Y. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.