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 4 courts 1986–2019 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 v. Schulzgreen1 sentence2019It is well settled that " [r]emote acts, disconnected and outside of the crime itself, cannot be separately proved' " ( People v Schulz , 4 NY3d 521, 529 [2005]). | 1 | 1 |
Fargnoli v. Fabergreen1 sentence2007Petitioner’s argument that the screening requirement violated his constitutional rights is lacking in merit (see Matter of Fargnoli v Faber, 105 AD2d 523, 525 [1984], appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 631 [1985]), and he has no standing to assert his claim regarding alleged violations of Dwight’s constitutional rights (see Matter of Harriet II. v Alex LL., 292 AD2d 92, 95 [2002]; Matter of Eulo v Walker, 211 AD2d 547, 547 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
Folsom v. Folsomgreen1 sentence2007In a prior decision, this Court affirmed a January 2003 Family Court order directing the children’s Law Guardian to screen all correspondence from petitioner to the children and to forward only “child appropriate” correspondence (Matter of Folsom v Folsom, 12 AD3d 962, 963 [2004]). * In a revised order issued in March 2004, Family Court continued the screening requirement and directed that respondent, the children’s mother, ensure that the children reply to petitioner’s correspondence. | 1 | 1 |
Harriet II. v. Alex LL.green1 sentence2007Petitioner’s argument that the screening requirement violated his constitutional rights is lacking in merit (see Matter of Fargnoli v Faber, 105 AD2d 523, 525 [1984], appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 631 [1985]), and he has no standing to assert his claim regarding alleged violations of Dwight’s constitutional rights (see Matter of Harriet II. v Alex LL., 292 AD2d 92, 95 [2002]; Matter of Eulo v Walker, 211 AD2d 547, 547 [2000]). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen1 sentence1986The jury should not have been given the opportunity "to use the screening test result to corroborate the evidential test result” (Brent & Stiller, Handling Drunk Driving Cases, ch 13, at 229; see, State v Thompson, 357 NW2d 591, 593 , supra; State v Smith, 218 Neb 201, 352 NW2d 620, 624 , supra). | 1 | 1 |
Dillingham v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1986"The question of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact: the truth and existence of the facts and circumstances bearing on the issue being a question of fact, and the determination of whether the facts and circumstances found to exist and to be true constitute probable cause being a question of law” (People v Oden, 36 NY2d 382, 384 ; see, People v Morales, 42 NY2d 129, 134 , cert denied 434 US 1018 ). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Moralesgreen1 sentence1986"The question of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact: the truth and existence of the facts and circumstances bearing on the issue being a question of fact, and the determination of whether the facts and circumstances found to exist and to be true constitute probable cause being a question of law” (People v Oden, 36 NY2d 382, 384 ; see, People v Morales, 42 NY2d 129, 134 , cert denied 434 US 1018 ). | 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. Heath
green
1 sentence2019The prosecutor's comment on summation regarding the presence of semen in the underwear was fair comment on the evidence ( see People v Jackson , 141 AD3d 1095 , 1096 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1146 [2017]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2019The prosecutor's comment on summation regarding the presence of semen in the underwear was fair comment on the evidence ( see People v Jackson , 141 AD3d 1095 , 1096 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1146 [2017]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2005This screening or breath test machine is used as a pass/ fail test and is basically reliable for the determination of some presence of alcohol in a person’s blood but not the actual percentage or concentration.” (Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, at 91 [1996 ed].) The case law generally is that evidence of an alcosensor test is not admissible at trial (cf. People v Thomas, 121 AD2d 73 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 823 [1987]; People v MacDonald, 227 AD2d 672 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 908 [1996]; People v Wright, 1 Misc 3d 133[A] , 2003 NY | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2005This screening or breath test machine is used as a pass/ fail test and is basically reliable for the determination of some presence of alcohol in a person’s blood but not the actual percentage or concentration.” (Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, at 91 [1996 ed].) The case law generally is that evidence of an alcosensor test is not admissible at trial (cf. People v Thomas, 121 AD2d 73 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 823 [1987]; People v MacDonald, 227 AD2d 672 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 908 [1996]; People v Wright, 1 Misc 3d 133[A] , 2003 NY | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. MacDonald
green
1 sentence2005This screening or breath test machine is used as a pass/ fail test and is basically reliable for the determination of some presence of alcohol in a person’s blood but not the actual percentage or concentration.” (Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, at 91 [1996 ed].) The case law generally is that evidence of an alcosensor test is not admissible at trial (cf. People v Thomas, 121 AD2d 73 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 823 [1987]; People v MacDonald, 227 AD2d 672 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 908 [1996]; People v Wright, 1 Misc 3d 133[A] , 2003 NY | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. MacDonald
green
1 sentence2005This screening or breath test machine is used as a pass/ fail test and is basically reliable for the determination of some presence of alcohol in a person’s blood but not the actual percentage or concentration.” (Carrieri, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62A, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194, at 91 [1996 ed].) The case law generally is that evidence of an alcosensor test is not admissible at trial (cf. People v Thomas, 121 AD2d 73 [1986], affd 70 NY2d 823 [1987]; People v MacDonald, 227 AD2d 672 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 908 [1996]; People v Wright, 1 Misc 3d 133[A] , 2003 NY | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Ottomanelli
green
1 sentence1996(See, People v Mertz, supra; People v Schools, 122 AD2d 502 [3d Dept 1986]; People v Rollins, 118 AD2d 949 [3d Dept 1986]; People v Ottomanelli, 107 AD2d 212 [2d Dept 1985].) But for the statements, the other evidence is foreclosed from use in the criminal trial, having been the foundation for the civil forfeiture (including the arresting officer’s testimony based upon the other proscribed evidence). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Rollins
green
1 sentence1996(See, People v Mertz, supra; People v Schools, 122 AD2d 502 [3d Dept 1986]; People v Rollins, 118 AD2d 949 [3d Dept 1986]; People v Ottomanelli, 107 AD2d 212 [2d Dept 1985].) But for the statements, the other evidence is foreclosed from use in the criminal trial, having been the foundation for the civil forfeiture (including the arresting officer’s testimony based upon the other proscribed evidence). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Schools
green
1 sentence1996(See, People v Mertz, supra; People v Schools, 122 AD2d 502 [3d Dept 1986]; People v Rollins, 118 AD2d 949 [3d Dept 1986]; People v Ottomanelli, 107 AD2d 212 [2d Dept 1985].) But for the statements, the other evidence is foreclosed from use in the criminal trial, having been the foundation for the civil forfeiture (including the arresting officer’s testimony based upon the other proscribed evidence). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Mertz
green
1 sentence1996(See, People v Mertz, supra; People v Schools, 122 AD2d 502 [3d Dept 1986]; People v Rollins, 118 AD2d 949 [3d Dept 1986]; People v Ottomanelli, 107 AD2d 212 [2d Dept 1985].) But for the statements, the other evidence is foreclosed from use in the criminal trial, having been the foundation for the civil forfeiture (including the arresting officer’s testimony based upon the other proscribed evidence). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Reich v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1991(People v Dumas, 68 NY2d, at 731 ; CPL 170.35 [1] [a].) Particularly troubling to this court is the People’s attempted use of a preliminary screening test report in place of the scientifically reliable SIB report for purposes of converting a misdemeanor complaint to an information. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Jenkins v. Wilbur
neutral
1 sentence1987To the extent the complaint purportedly alleges a cause of action in medical malpractice, Dr. Dubin, the school physician and an employee of the school district (see, Education Law § 902), owed the infant plaintiff no duty other than to administer the screening test in a proper manner (cf., Jenkins v Wilbur, 72 AD2d 822 ; Ayers v Russell, 50 Hun 282 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence1986The jury should not have been given the opportunity "to use the screening test result to corroborate the evidential test result” (Brent & Stiller, Handling Drunk Driving Cases, ch 13, at 229; see, State v Thompson, 357 NW2d 591, 593 , supra; State v Smith, 218 Neb 201, 352 NW2d 620, 624 , supra). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Oden
green
1 sentence1986"The question of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact: the truth and existence of the facts and circumstances bearing on the issue being a question of fact, and the determination of whether the facts and circumstances found to exist and to be true constitute probable cause being a question of law” (People v Oden, 36 NY2d 382, 384 ; see, People v Morales, 42 NY2d 129, 134 , cert denied 434 US 1018 ). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.