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 3 courts 1968–2012 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 ex rel. Speights v. McKoygreen2 sentences2012Speights v McKoy, 88 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2011]; People ex rel. 2012Speights v McKoy, 88 AD3d 1039, 1040 [2011]; People ex rel. | 2 | 3 |
Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police of City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2008However, because there are only four issues cognizable in a habeas corpus challenge to a Governor’s extradition warrant, the petitioner must make his equity arguments in the South Carolina forum (see California v Superior Court of Cal., San Bernardino Cty., 482 US 400, 407-408 [1987] [“extradition proceedings are . . . ‘emphatically’ not the appropriate time or place for entertaining defenses or determining the guilt or innocence of the charged party . . . [for] [t]hose inquiries are left to the prosecutorial authorities and courts of the demanding State”); Biddinger v Commissioner of Police o | 1 | 1 |
California v. Superior Court of Cal., San Bernardino Cty.green1 sentence2008However, because there are only four issues cognizable in a habeas corpus challenge to a Governor’s extradition warrant, the petitioner must make his equity arguments in the South Carolina forum (see California v Superior Court of Cal., San Bernardino Cty., 482 US 400, 407-408 [1987] [“extradition proceedings are . . . ‘emphatically’ not the appropriate time or place for entertaining defenses or determining the guilt or innocence of the charged party . . . [for] [t]hose inquiries are left to the prosecutorial authorities and courts of the demanding State”); Biddinger v Commissioner of Police o | 1 | 1 |
Fhagen v. Millergreen1 sentence1970The Federal court opined that, because of plaintiff Fhagen’s experience (i.e., adjournment of the habeas corpus hearing over the objection of his counsel), this may be an £i illusory remedy ” (see Fhagen v. Miller, supra, p. 637, n. 5 ). | 1 | 1 |
People ex rel. Keitt v. McManngreen1 sentence1969“It is difficult to justify any exception for contempts — whether civil or criminal — from the normal habeas corpus test of illegal detention.” (Par. 7003.6; see People v. McMann, 18 NY 2d 257 .) ‘ ‘ The law is not clear today with respect to the proper mode of attacking a contempt order.” (Par. 7003.7.) It should be added, that since ‘1 habeas corpus is considered a civil proceeding because 8 * * it is based upon a civil right to be free from unlawful detention ” (Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N. Y. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Winslow v. O'Neill
green
1 sentence1997Appellant failed to sustain his burden at the habeas corpus hearing (see, Matter of Winslow v O’Neill, 153 AD2d 563 ), and the undisputed evidence overwhelmingly supported the retention of his son at Brooklyn Developmental Center. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Jelke
neutral
1 sentence1968At the Appellate Division in People v. Jelke ( 284 App. Div. 211 ) the examination by the Judge of two jurors on their qualifications and a conversation between the Judge and one of the jurors (recorded) as to doubts in the juror’s mind as to his impartiality were regarded as “ serious error [s] ” (p. 218), but an additional ground was the only one reached by this court (People v. Jelke, 308 N. Y. 56 ). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
People v. Jelke
green
1 sentence1968At the Appellate Division in People v. Jelke ( 284 App. Div. 211 ) the examination by the Judge of two jurors on their qualifications and a conversation between the Judge and one of the jurors (recorded) as to doubts in the juror’s mind as to his impartiality were regarded as “ serious error [s] ” (p. 218), but an additional ground was the only one reached by this court (People v. Jelke, 308 N. Y. 56 ). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.