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 5 courts 1978–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wehringer v. Brannigangreen2 sentences2012Any court of competent jurisdiction is vested under the inherent powers doctrine “with all powers reasonably required to enable it to: perform efficiently its judicial functions, to protect its dignity, independence and integrity, and to make its lawful actions effective” (Wehringer v Brannigan, 232 AD2d 206, 207 [1st Dept 1996] [internal quotation marks omitted], appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 980 [1997]; see Matter of County of Broome [New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, Dist. 2002This court, as any court of competent jurisdiction, is vested under the inherent powers doctrine “with all powers reasonably required to enable it to: perform efficiently its judicial functions, to protect its dignity, independence and integrity, and to make its lawful actions effective * * * .” (Wehringer v Brannigan, 232 AD2d 206, 207 [1st Dept 1996] [internal quotation marks omitted], appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 980 [1997].) Accordingly, when legislative appropriations prove insufficient and legislative inaction obstructs the judiciary’s ability to function, the judiciary has the inherent auth | 2 | 2 |
People v. Littlegreen2 sentences2000Dugan, in Matter of People v Little ( 89 Misc 2d 742, 745 [Yates County Ct 1977], affd no opn 60 AD2d 797 [4th Dept 1977]), explained it best: “Under the inherent powers doctrine a court has all powers reasonably required to enable a court to perform efficiently its judicial functions, to protect its dignity, independence and integrity, and to make its lawful actions effective. 1985The court then went on to conclude that a financial sanction could be imposed under the inherent powers doctrine: “Although stated in a different context a long time ago, the following comments by the then Chief Judge Ruger in Forstman v Schulting ( 108 NY 110,112 ) appear relevant: Tt has been the uniform practice of the courts to exercise summary jurisdiction over the conduct of parties and attorneys, in actions pending in court, and enforce obedience to orders and directions made by it, in the interest of fair dealing and honesty, to protect all parties or persons whose rights have been aff | 1 | 5 |
In re the Arbitration between County of Broome & New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, District Council 82green1 sentence2012Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO], 80 AD3d 1047, 1049-1050 [3d Dept 2011] [courts’ inherent authority to maintain the integrity of the judicial process, manage their judicial functions, and guard their independence]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wehringer v. Brannigan
green
2 sentences2012Any court of competent jurisdiction is vested under the inherent powers doctrine “with all powers reasonably required to enable it to: perform efficiently its judicial functions, to protect its dignity, independence and integrity, and to make its lawful actions effective” (Wehringer v Brannigan, 232 AD2d 206, 207 [1st Dept 1996] [internal quotation marks omitted], appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 980 [1997]; see Matter of County of Broome [New York State Law Enforcement Officers Union, Dist. 2002This court, as any court of competent jurisdiction, is vested under the inherent powers doctrine “with all powers reasonably required to enable it to: perform efficiently its judicial functions, to protect its dignity, independence and integrity, and to make its lawful actions effective * * * .” (Wehringer v Brannigan, 232 AD2d 206, 207 [1st Dept 1996] [internal quotation marks omitted], appeal dismissed 89 NY2d 980 [1997].) Accordingly, when legislative appropriations prove insufficient and legislative inaction obstructs the judiciary’s ability to function, the judiciary has the inherent auth | 2 | 2002–2012 |
Forstman v. . Schulting
green
2 sentences1985The court then went on to conclude that a financial sanction could be imposed under the inherent powers doctrine: “Although stated in a different context a long time ago, the following comments by the then Chief Judge Ruger in Forstman v Schulting ( 108 NY 110,112 ) appear relevant: Tt has been the uniform practice of the courts to exercise summary jurisdiction over the conduct of parties and attorneys, in actions pending in court, and enforce obedience to orders and directions made by it, in the interest of fair dealing and honesty, to protect all parties or persons whose rights have been aff 1981Although stated in a different context a long time ago, the following comments by the then Chief Judge Huger in Forstman v Schulting ( 108 NY 110, 112 ) appear relevant: “It has been the uniform practice of the courts to exercise summary jurisdiction over the conduct of parties and attorneys, in actions pending in court, and enforce obedience to orders and directions made by it, in the interest of fair dealing and honesty, to protect all parties or persons whose rights have been affected by the litigation.” We-also agree with the observation of Judge Dugan, of Yates County Court, that: “Under | 2 | 1981–1985 |
Losicco v. Gardner's Village, Inc.
green
1 sentence1985Thus, despite the absence of explicit statutory authority, we have, under the inherent powers doctrine, imposed monetary sanctions in such circumstances (see, e.g., Gambardella v County of Nassau, 104 AD2d 922 ; Piazza v Hastings Assoc., 103 AD2d 738 ; Mineroff v Macy’s & Co., 97 AD2d 535 ; cf. Gabrelian v Gabrelian, 108 AD2d 445 , supra [decided herewith]). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Peoples Westchester Savings Bank v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1985Thus, despite the absence of explicit statutory authority, we have, under the inherent powers doctrine, imposed monetary sanctions in such circumstances (see, e.g., Gambardella v County of Nassau, 104 AD2d 922 ; Piazza v Hastings Assoc., 103 AD2d 738 ; Mineroff v Macy’s & Co., 97 AD2d 535 ; cf. Gabrelian v Gabrelian, 108 AD2d 445 , supra [decided herewith]). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Gambardella v. County of Nassau
neutral
1 sentence1985Thus, despite the absence of explicit statutory authority, we have, under the inherent powers doctrine, imposed monetary sanctions in such circumstances (see, e.g., Gambardella v County of Nassau, 104 AD2d 922 ; Piazza v Hastings Assoc., 103 AD2d 738 ; Mineroff v Macy’s & Co., 97 AD2d 535 ; cf. Gabrelian v Gabrelian, 108 AD2d 445 , supra [decided herewith]). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Gabrelian v. Gabrelian
green
1 sentence1985Thus, despite the absence of explicit statutory authority, we have, under the inherent powers doctrine, imposed monetary sanctions in such circumstances (see, e.g., Gambardella v County of Nassau, 104 AD2d 922 ; Piazza v Hastings Assoc., 103 AD2d 738 ; Mineroff v Macy’s & Co., 97 AD2d 535 ; cf. Gabrelian v Gabrelian, 108 AD2d 445 , supra [decided herewith]). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Langan v. First Trust Deposit Company
green
1 sentence1985It is our view that courts of record (Judiciary Law § 2) are vested with inherent powers, which are neither derived from nor dependent upon express statutory authority, and which permit such courts to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of their jurisdiction (Langan v First Trust & Deposit Co., 270 App Div 700 , affd 296 NY 1014 ). 1 The so-called “inherent powers doctrine” has been aptly described as follows: “Under the inherent powers doctrine a court has all powers reasonably required to enable a court to perform efficiently its judicial fun | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Langan v. First Trust & Deposit Co.
green
1 sentence1985It is our view that courts of record (Judiciary Law § 2) are vested with inherent powers, which are neither derived from nor dependent upon express statutory authority, and which permit such courts to do all things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within the scope of their jurisdiction (Langan v First Trust & Deposit Co., 270 App Div 700 , affd 296 NY 1014 ). 1 The so-called “inherent powers doctrine” has been aptly described as follows: “Under the inherent powers doctrine a court has all powers reasonably required to enable a court to perform efficiently its judicial fun | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.