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.
8 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1902–1966 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holmes v. State
green
1 sentence1966As was said in Holmes v. State of New York ( 279 App. Div. 489, 491 ): “What may be a suitable means of access is of course a question of fact”. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Matter of Flicker v. Mac Sign Co.
green
1 sentence1941We think these facts sufficient to sustain the award, and to bring the ease within the exception noted in Matter of Flicker v. Mac Sign Company ( 252 N. Y. 492 ). | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Cromwell v. . the Brooklyn Fire Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1934Co., 44 N. Y. 42 ; Dunlop v. Avery, 89 id. 592.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Larmore v. . Crown Point Iron Co.
neutral
1 sentence1926(Larmore v. Crown Point Iron Co., 101 N. Y. 391 .) Kelly, P. J., Manning and Young, JJ., concur; Jaycox and Kapper, JJ., dissent, and vote to affirm, upon the ground that defendant was not negligent, and that it violated no duty, either statutory or common law. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Kennedy v. . Kennedy
green
1 sentence1918Thomas, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., dissented upon the ground that the proof does not establish a ease within the rule of Kennedy v. Kennedy ( 73 N. Y. 369 ); Barber v. Barber ( 168 App. Div. 212 ), and Donohue v. Donohue (180 id. 561), with whom Blackmar, J., concurred. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Barber v. Barber
neutral
1 sentence1918Thomas, Mills and Putnam, JJ., concurred; Jenks, P. J., dissented upon the ground that the proof does not establish a ease within the rule of Kennedy v. Kennedy ( 73 N. Y. 369 ); Barber v. Barber ( 168 App. Div. 212 ), and Donohue v. Donohue (180 id. 561), with whom Blackmar, J., concurred. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Haefelin v. McDonald
neutral
1 sentence1911The facts alleged, it seems to me, meet the objections pointed out in Haefelin v. McDonald (supra) and bring the ease within the rule that where one party makes a promise for a valuable consideration for the benefit of a third person, that third person may maintain an action upon the promise. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
Rochester Telephone Co. v. . Ross
neutral
1 sentence1911(Rochester Telephone Co. v. Ross, 195 N. Y. 429 ; Pond v. New Rochelle Water Co., 183 id. 330; Buchanan v. Tilden, 158 id. 109; Thorp v. Keokuk Coal Co., 48 id. 253.) In the Thorp, case the court said : “ In such a case it is not needful that there should be any consideration passing from the third person. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
White v. Carpenter
green
1 sentence1905The authorities to this effect are uniform. ( White v. Carpenter, 2 Paige, 217 ; Sayre v. Townsends, 15 Wend. 647 ; McGowan v. McGowan, 14 Gray, 119 ; Wheeler v. Kirtland, 23 N. J. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Sayre v. Townsends
neutral
1 sentence1905The authorities to this effect are uniform. ( White v. Carpenter, 2 Paige, 217 ; Sayre v. Townsends, 15 Wend. 647 ; McGowan v. McGowan, 14 Gray, 119 ; Wheeler v. Kirtland, 23 N. J. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
People Ex Rel. Cooper v. Registrar of Arrears of Brooklyn
neutral
1 sentence1902Cooper v. Registrar of Arrears ( 114 N. Y. 19 ). | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.