56 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1964–2024 5 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. Yontzgreen2 sentences2016We therefore conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the victim was unconscious and, therefore, physically helpless (see People v Yontz, 116 AD3d 1242, 1242-1243 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1026 [2014]; People v Willard, 38 AD3d 924, 925 [2007]). 2016We therefore conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the victim was unconscious and, therefore, physically helpless (see People v Yontz, 116 AD3d 1242, 1242-1243 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1026 [2014]; People v Willard, 38 AD3d 924, 925 [2007]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Willardgreen2 sentences2016We therefore conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the victim was unconscious and, therefore, physically helpless (see People v Yontz, 116 AD3d 1242, 1242-1243 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1026 [2014]; People v Willard, 38 AD3d 924, 925 [2007]). 2016We therefore conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that the victim was unconscious and, therefore, physically helpless (see People v Yontz, 116 AD3d 1242, 1242-1243 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1026 [2014]; People v Willard, 38 AD3d 924, 925 [2007]). | 2 | 3 |
Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp.green2 sentences2024As to causation, plaintiff's submissions, which included deposition testimony, a laboratory test reporting the presence of EPEC in plaintiff's stool, medical records including the observations and conclusions of her treating physicians, and expert opinions from a medical doctor and a microbiologist, sufficiently raised a triable issue of fact without resorting to speculation ( see Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp. , 92 NY2d 544, 550 [1998]; Jaroslawicz v Prestige Caterers , 292 AD2d 232, 232-233 [1st Dept 2002]). 2024As to causation, plaintiff's submissions, which included deposition testimony, a laboratory test reporting the presence of EPEC in plaintiff's stool, medical records including the observations and conclusions of her treating physicians, and expert opinions from a medical doctor and a microbiologist, sufficiently raised a triable issue of fact without resorting to speculation ( see Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp. , 92 NY2d 544, 550 [1998]; Jaroslawicz v Prestige Caterers , 292 AD2d 232, 232-233 [1st Dept 2002]). | 2 | 2 |
Jaroslawicz v. Prestige Caterers, Inc.green2 sentences2024As to causation, plaintiff's submissions, which included deposition testimony, a laboratory test reporting the presence of EPEC in plaintiff's stool, medical records including the observations and conclusions of her treating physicians, and expert opinions from a medical doctor and a microbiologist, sufficiently raised a triable issue of fact without resorting to speculation ( see Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp. , 92 NY2d 544, 550 [1998]; Jaroslawicz v Prestige Caterers , 292 AD2d 232, 232-233 [1st Dept 2002]). 2024As to causation, plaintiff's submissions, which included deposition testimony, a laboratory test reporting the presence of EPEC in plaintiff's stool, medical records including the observations and conclusions of her treating physicians, and expert opinions from a medical doctor and a microbiologist, sufficiently raised a triable issue of fact without resorting to speculation ( see Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp. , 92 NY2d 544, 550 [1998]; Jaroslawicz v Prestige Caterers , 292 AD2d 232, 232-233 [1st Dept 2002]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Burdickgreen2 sentences2012Moreover, a DEC representative testified that the reports themselves were made for DEC in the regular course of business of the contractors, it was their regular course of business to create such reports, and they were prepared at or near the time that the samples were taken (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; People v Burdick, 72 AD3d 1399, 1401 [2010]). 2012Moreover, a DEC representative testified that the reports themselves were made for DEC in the regular course of business of the contractors, it was their regular course of business to create such reports, and they were prepared at or near the time that the samples were taken (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; People v Burdick, 72 AD3d 1399, 1401 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Knoxgreen2 sentences2012Nor has defendant demonstrated the lack of a strategic reason to stipulate the laboratory analysis reports into evidence, and it may well have been a plausible tactical decision to limit the People’s witnesses to the Cl and the detective in order to highlight the perceived weaknesses in their testimony (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Knox, 80 AD3d 887, 889 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 860 [2011]; People v Fancher, 267 AD2d 770, 771 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 919 [2000]). 2012Nor has defendant demonstrated the lack of a strategic reason to stipulate the laboratory analysis reports into evidence, and it may well have been a plausible tactical decision to limit the People’s witnesses to the Cl and the detective in order to highlight the perceived weaknesses in their testimony (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Knox, 80 AD3d 887, 889 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 860 [2011]; People v Fancher, 267 AD2d 770, 771 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 919 [2000]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Fanchergreen2 sentences2012Nor has defendant demonstrated the lack of a strategic reason to stipulate the laboratory analysis reports into evidence, and it may well have been a plausible tactical decision to limit the People’s witnesses to the Cl and the detective in order to highlight the perceived weaknesses in their testimony (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Knox, 80 AD3d 887, 889 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 860 [2011]; People v Fancher, 267 AD2d 770, 771 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 919 [2000]). 2012Nor has defendant demonstrated the lack of a strategic reason to stipulate the laboratory analysis reports into evidence, and it may well have been a plausible tactical decision to limit the People’s witnesses to the Cl and the detective in order to highlight the perceived weaknesses in their testimony (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Knox, 80 AD3d 887, 889 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 860 [2011]; People v Fancher, 267 AD2d 770, 771 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 919 [2000]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2012Moreover, a DEC representative testified that the reports themselves were made for DEC in the regular course of business of the contractors, it was their regular course of business to create such reports, and they were prepared at or near the time that the samples were taken (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; People v Burdick, 72 AD3d 1399, 1401 [2010]). 2012Moreover, a DEC representative testified that the reports themselves were made for DEC in the regular course of business of the contractors, it was their regular course of business to create such reports, and they were prepared at or near the time that the samples were taken (see CPLR 4518 [a]; People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579-580 [1986]; People v Burdick, 72 AD3d 1399, 1401 [2010]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Riveragreen2 sentences2012Nor has defendant demonstrated the lack of a strategic reason to stipulate the laboratory analysis reports into evidence, and it may well have been a plausible tactical decision to limit the People’s witnesses to the Cl and the detective in order to highlight the perceived weaknesses in their testimony (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Knox, 80 AD3d 887, 889 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 860 [2011]; People v Fancher, 267 AD2d 770, 771 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 919 [2000]). 2012Nor has defendant demonstrated the lack of a strategic reason to stipulate the laboratory analysis reports into evidence, and it may well have been a plausible tactical decision to limit the People’s witnesses to the Cl and the detective in order to highlight the perceived weaknesses in their testimony (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Knox, 80 AD3d 887, 889 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 860 [2011]; People v Fancher, 267 AD2d 770, 771 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 919 [2000]). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Swampgreen2 sentences2009The acceptance of a field test in place of a laboratory analysis was authorized by People v Swamp ( 84 NY2d 725, 730-731 [1995]). . 1996The Court of Appeals ruled that suppression of the identification did not constitute a "legal impediment” (supra, at 97) to the conviction and distinguished its holding in People v Swamp ( 84 NY2d 725 ), by explaining that in Swamp , the subsequent laboratory test results effectively stripped the People of the only demonstrable evidence they had to prove that the substance possessed was cocaine, which proof constituted an element of the crime. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Kalingreen2 sentences2022The instrument recited that the officer believed that the subject substance was cocaine "based upon [her] professional training as a police officer in the identification of drugs, [her] prior experience as a police officer making drug arrests, an observation of the packaging, which is characteristic of this type of drug" ( see People v Kalin , 12 NY3d at 231-232 ), as well as "a laboratory analysis of the substance which confirmed that the substance" was cocaine. 2010This ruling is not law of the case and is not binding on this court. 3 Because the deponent officer sufficiently described the substance recovered and stated that he determined it to be marihuana with an aggregate weight of more than two ounces “based upon [his] specialized training and experience as a police officer in the identification and packaging of controlled substances and marihuana,” a laboratory report was unnecessary in order to deem the complaint an information (see People v Kalin, 12 NY3d 225, 231 [2009]; People v Palmer, 24 Misc 3d 1218[A] , 2009 NY Slip Op 51512[U] , *3 [Crim Ct | 1 | 2 |
People v. Christophergreen2 sentences2000Notably, the substance itself need not be produced at trial (see, People v Christopher, 161 AD2d 896, 897-898 , lv denied 76 NY2d 786 ; People v Lynch, 85 AD2d 126, 128 ; People v Houston, 72 AD2d 369, 379 ) and, in the absence of a laboratory analysis, “the nature and quantity of the prohibited matter * * * may be proven circumstantially without receipt of such matter in evidence” (People v Houston, supra, at 379 ). 1993Police failed to recover bag sold to buyer, but recovered from defendant’s "stash” bag similar plastic bags containing cocaine]; see also, People v Christopher, 161 AD2d 896, 897 ; People v Lynch, 85 AD2d 126 ; People v Escalera, 143 Misc 2d 779 [cases holding that, in drug sale prosecutions where the substance sold is not available for analysis, drug users who can demonstrate a knowledge of the narcotic may testify as to the identify of the substance]). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hardiegreen1 sentence2023Although defendant alleges that he had, by several letters, sought an affidavit from his trial counsel concerning his representation as well as his allegations related thereto, no copies of such letters were attached to, or accompanied, his motion ( see People v Hardie , 211 AD3d at 1421; People v Blanford , 179 AD3d 1388 , 1395 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 968 [2020]). | 1 | 1 |
Gayle v. City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2017Moreover, defendants failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs’ evidence did not render the possibility of another explanation for Mr. Harris’s illness “sufficiently ‘remote’ or ‘technical’ to enable the jury to reach its verdict based not upon speculation, but upon the logical inferences to be drawn from the evidence” (Gayle v City of New York, 92 NY2d 936, 937 [1998]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dunkleygreen1 sentence2017(People v Dunkley, 192 Misc 2d 305, 306 [Grim Ct, NY County 2002]; see also People v Brown, 22 Misc 3d 1125[A] , 2009 NY Slip Op 50279[U] , *9 [Nassau Dist Ct 2009] [the prevailing view is that, in the absence of other corroborative proof, i.e., an admission by the defendant or a supporting deposition from one who is actually familiar with the particular substance in question and knows it to be marihuana, a facially sufficient in formation must include either a certified laboratory analysis or a preliminary field test report demonstrated to be reliable].) The People now contend that the court | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Juniorgreen | 1 | 1 |
People v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2016We are satisfied that the evidence, when viewed in its totality, was legally sufficient to establish that defendant had the intent and ability to sell heroin at the time of each and every one of the sales for which he was charged (see People v Wright, 139 AD3d at 1098 ; People v Williams, 138 AD3d 1233, 1234-1236 [2016]; People v Whitehead, 130 AD3d 1142, 1145 [2015], lv granted 26 NY3d 1043 [2015]). 1 While defendant’s contention that the People failed to adequately prove that he knowingly participated in a criminal enterprise is unpreserved for our review (see People v Andrews, 127 AD3d 1417 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Andrewsgreen1 sentence2016We are satisfied that the evidence, when viewed in its totality, was legally sufficient to establish that defendant had the intent and ability to sell heroin at the time of each and every one of the sales for which he was charged (see People v Wright, 139 AD3d at 1098 ; People v Williams, 138 AD3d 1233, 1234-1236 [2016]; People v Whitehead, 130 AD3d 1142, 1145 [2015], lv granted 26 NY3d 1043 [2015]). 1 While defendant’s contention that the People failed to adequately prove that he knowingly participated in a criminal enterprise is unpreserved for our review (see People v Andrews, 127 AD3d 1417 | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Scottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Whiteheadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lopezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Outleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Rosegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. O'Neillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Spulka v. Selskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cruz v. Selskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martinez v. Selskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Knight v. Selskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Di Donatogreen | 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. Gray
green
2 sentences2012Similarly, the failure to preserve the legal insufficiency argument cannot be considered to be ineffec tive assistance, inasmuch as a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s proof would likely have been denied in view of the Cl’s testimony and the laboratory analysis report (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d at 972 ; People v Harvey, 96 AD3d at 1100 ; People v Hoffler, 74 AD3d 1632 , 1636 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]). 2012Similarly, the failure to preserve the legal insufficiency argument cannot be considered to be ineffec tive assistance, inasmuch as a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s proof would likely have been denied in view of the Cl’s testimony and the laboratory analysis report (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d at 972 ; People v Harvey, 96 AD3d at 1100 ; People v Hoffler, 74 AD3d 1632 , 1636 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Hoffler
green
2 sentences2012Similarly, the failure to preserve the legal insufficiency argument cannot be considered to be ineffec tive assistance, inasmuch as a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s proof would likely have been denied in view of the Cl’s testimony and the laboratory analysis report (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d at 972 ; People v Harvey, 96 AD3d at 1100 ; People v Hoffler, 74 AD3d 1632 , 1636 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]). 2012Similarly, the failure to preserve the legal insufficiency argument cannot be considered to be ineffec tive assistance, inasmuch as a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s proof would likely have been denied in view of the Cl’s testimony and the laboratory analysis report (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d at 972 ; People v Harvey, 96 AD3d at 1100 ; People v Hoffler, 74 AD3d 1632 , 1636 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Harvey
green
2 sentences2012Similarly, the failure to preserve the legal insufficiency argument cannot be considered to be ineffec tive assistance, inasmuch as a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s proof would likely have been denied in view of the Cl’s testimony and the laboratory analysis report (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d at 972 ; People v Harvey, 96 AD3d at 1100 ; People v Hoffler, 74 AD3d 1632 , 1636 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]). 2012Similarly, the failure to preserve the legal insufficiency argument cannot be considered to be ineffec tive assistance, inasmuch as a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s proof would likely have been denied in view of the Cl’s testimony and the laboratory analysis report (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d at 972 ; People v Harvey, 96 AD3d at 1100 ; People v Hoffler, 74 AD3d 1632 , 1636 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. McRobbie
green
2 sentences2012Similarly, the failure to preserve the legal insufficiency argument cannot be considered to be ineffec tive assistance, inasmuch as a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s proof would likely have been denied in view of the Cl’s testimony and the laboratory analysis report (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d at 972 ; People v Harvey, 96 AD3d at 1100 ; People v Hoffler, 74 AD3d 1632 , 1636 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]). 2012Similarly, the failure to preserve the legal insufficiency argument cannot be considered to be ineffec tive assistance, inasmuch as a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s proof would likely have been denied in view of the Cl’s testimony and the laboratory analysis report (see People v McRobbie, 97 AD3d at 972 ; People v Harvey, 96 AD3d at 1100 ; People v Hoffler, 74 AD3d 1632 , 1636 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Lynch
green
2 sentences2000Notably, the substance itself need not be produced at trial (see, People v Christopher, 161 AD2d 896, 897-898 , lv denied 76 NY2d 786 ; People v Lynch, 85 AD2d 126, 128 ; People v Houston, 72 AD2d 369, 379 ) and, in the absence of a laboratory analysis, “the nature and quantity of the prohibited matter * * * may be proven circumstantially without receipt of such matter in evidence” (People v Houston, supra, at 379 ). 1993Police failed to recover bag sold to buyer, but recovered from defendant’s "stash” bag similar plastic bags containing cocaine]; see also, People v Christopher, 161 AD2d 896, 897 ; People v Lynch, 85 AD2d 126 ; People v Escalera, 143 Misc 2d 779 [cases holding that, in drug sale prosecutions where the substance sold is not available for analysis, drug users who can demonstrate a knowledge of the narcotic may testify as to the identify of the substance]). | 2 | 1993–2000 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1982The defense then moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the failure to preserve this evidence violated the defendant’s constitutional rights to due process, as enunciated in Brady v Maryland ( 373 US 83 ). 1982In United States v Agurs ( 427 US 97 ), the United States Supreme Court shed further light on the requirement of Brady (supra). | 2 | 1982–1982 |
People v. Vittengl
green
2 sentences2023In this regard, he claims that, prior to pleading guilty, his trial attorney told him that she had viewed the laboratory test results, which was a misrepresentation because the report had, in fact, not been obtained because it did not exist. [FN1] Defendant's contentions, however, are self-serving, belied by the record and unsubstantiated by any evidence or an affidavit from trial counsel ( see CPL 440.30 [4] [d]; People v Hinds , 217 AD3d 1138 , 1141 [3d Dept 2023] lv denied 40 NY3d 951 [2023]; People v Vittengl , 203 AD3d 1390 , 1393 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Robles , 172 AD3d 1780 , 1781 [3d 2023In this regard, he claims that, prior to pleading guilty, his trial attorney told him that she had viewed the laboratory test results, which was a misrepresentation because the report had, in fact, not been obtained because it did not exist. [FN1] Defendant's contentions, however, are self-serving, belied by the record and unsubstantiated by any evidence or an affidavit from trial counsel ( see CPL 440.30 [4] [d]; People v Hinds , 217 AD3d 1138 , 1141 [3d Dept 2023] lv denied 40 NY3d 951 [2023]; People v Vittengl , 203 AD3d 1390 , 1393 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Robles , 172 AD3d 1780 , 1781 [3d | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Hinds
green
2 sentences2023In this regard, he claims that, prior to pleading guilty, his trial attorney told him that she had viewed the laboratory test results, which was a misrepresentation because the report had, in fact, not been obtained because it did not exist. [FN1] Defendant's contentions, however, are self-serving, belied by the record and unsubstantiated by any evidence or an affidavit from trial counsel ( see CPL 440.30 [4] [d]; People v Hinds , 217 AD3d 1138 , 1141 [3d Dept 2023] lv denied 40 NY3d 951 [2023]; People v Vittengl , 203 AD3d 1390 , 1393 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Robles , 172 AD3d 1780 , 1781 [3d 2023In this regard, he claims that, prior to pleading guilty, his trial attorney told him that she had viewed the laboratory test results, which was a misrepresentation because the report had, in fact, not been obtained because it did not exist. [FN1] Defendant's contentions, however, are self-serving, belied by the record and unsubstantiated by any evidence or an affidavit from trial counsel ( see CPL 440.30 [4] [d]; People v Hinds , 217 AD3d 1138 , 1141 [3d Dept 2023] lv denied 40 NY3d 951 [2023]; People v Vittengl , 203 AD3d 1390 , 1393 [3d Dept 2022]; People v Robles , 172 AD3d 1780 , 1781 [3d | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Blanford
green
1 sentence2023Although defendant alleges that he had, by several letters, sought an affidavit from his trial counsel concerning his representation as well as his allegations related thereto, no copies of such letters were attached to, or accompanied, his motion ( see People v Hardie , 211 AD3d at 1421; People v Blanford , 179 AD3d 1388 , 1395 [3d Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 968 [2020]). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Singleton
neutral
1 sentence2022Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly concluded, based upon a preponderance of the evidence presented at a violation of probation hearing ( see CPL 410.70[1], [3], [4]; People v Herring , 178 AD3d 1073 , 1073), that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation by being re-arrested, and by using marijuana ( see People v Stahl , 113 AD3d 640, 641 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Figueroa
neutral
1 sentence2016(Figueroa, 36 Misc 3d at 607 .) In Cunningham , the defendant was charged with violating Administrative Code § 10-125 (b). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Lloyd
green
1 sentence2016We are satisfied that the evidence, when viewed in its totality, was legally sufficient to establish that defendant had the intent and ability to sell heroin at the time of each and every one of the sales for which he was charged (see People v Wright, 139 AD3d at 1098 ; People v Williams, 138 AD3d 1233, 1234-1236 [2016]; People v Whitehead, 130 AD3d 1142, 1145 [2015], lv granted 26 NY3d 1043 [2015]). 1 While defendant’s contention that the People failed to adequately prove that he knowingly participated in a criminal enterprise is unpreserved for our review (see People v Andrews, 127 AD3d 1417 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Wright
green
1 sentence2016We are satisfied that the evidence, when viewed in its totality, was legally sufficient to establish that defendant had the intent and ability to sell heroin at the time of each and every one of the sales for which he was charged (see People v Wright, 139 AD3d at 1098 ; People v Williams, 138 AD3d 1233, 1234-1236 [2016]; People v Whitehead, 130 AD3d 1142, 1145 [2015], lv granted 26 NY3d 1043 [2015]). 1 While defendant’s contention that the People failed to adequately prove that he knowingly participated in a criminal enterprise is unpreserved for our review (see People v Andrews, 127 AD3d 1417 | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People v. Kahn green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Argro green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Reich v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Lucarelli neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| People v. Mayo green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Ruzas v. Goord green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Wells v. Selsky green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Powell v. Goord green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Anderson v. Selsky green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Carey green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| People v. Gerber green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Miller v. Portuondo green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. McFadgen green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| People v. Wesley green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| People v. Houston green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Dragan v. Commissioner of Education neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| In re Jahron S. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| In re Juan C. neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| In re Manuel F. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| In re Kaliek G. neutral | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| In re Deshone C. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Oakley green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Sullivan green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| People v. Alejandro green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| In re David T. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| In re Detrece H. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.