attorneys bar in New York

7 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1951–2002 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Fochetta v. Schlackmangreen nyappdiv · 1999 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 1 sentence 2002(Fochetta v Schlackman, 257 AD2d 546, 547 [1st Dept 1999].) Here, plaintiffs and their attorneys already have exercised their rights by redacting the information plaintiffs or the attorneys claim is privileged attorney-client communications or immune attorney work product.	1	1
Grago v. Robertsongreen nyappdiv · 1975 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 1 sentence 1995(See, Rosner v Paley, supra, 65 NY2d, at 738; Grago v Robertson, supra, 49 AD2d, at 646.) Under the circumstances, it is clear plaintiff cannot establish that these defendants had disregarded a rule or principle of law that was well known, long published and readily defined.	1	1
People v. . Woltergreen ny · 1911 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974 1 sentence 1974See People v. Wolter ( 203 N. Y. 484 ) and People v. Genovese (10 N Y 2d 478, supra) which held that the prior opinion of a juror was no bar; Garland v. United States ( 182 F. 2d 801 ) where mere relationship to a prosecuting attorney was no bar; Lane v. United States ( 321 F. 2d 573 , cert. den. 381 U. S. 920 ); Carpintero v. United States ( 398 F. 2d 488 ); Daut v. United States ( 405 F. 2d 312 , cert. den. 402 U. S. 945 ) where being friends of or having attended law school together with the prosecuting attorney was no bar; People v. McQuade ( 110 N. Y. 284 ) where being a former client to	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Stang v. Stang neutral nyappdiv · 1991 1 sentence 1998Given the nature of the oral agreement entered into by the parties’ attorneys at the hearing, the court erred in awarding counsel fees to the plaintiff in the absence of considering her statement of net worth (cf., Stang v Stang, 173 AD2d 812 ), and the matter is remitted for a new determination considering that statement.	1	1998–1998
Kelly v. State Insurance Fund green ny · 1983 1 sentence 1990Fund ( 60 NY2d 131 ), a successful plaintiff against a third-party tort-feasor may recover from a workers’ compensation insurance carrier the pro rata share of the counsel fees and disbursements incurred in prosecuting the action to the extent that the carrier benefited from the recovery of its lien and the payment of future benefits.	1	1990–1990
Garland v. United States green ca4 · 1950 1 sentence 1974See People v. Wolter ( 203 N. Y. 484 ) and People v. Genovese (10 N Y 2d 478, supra) which held that the prior opinion of a juror was no bar; Garland v. United States ( 182 F. 2d 801 ) where mere relationship to a prosecuting attorney was no bar; Lane v. United States ( 321 F. 2d 573 , cert. den. 381 U. S. 920 ); Carpintero v. United States ( 398 F. 2d 488 ); Daut v. United States ( 405 F. 2d 312 , cert. den. 402 U. S. 945 ) where being friends of or having attended law school together with the prosecuting attorney was no bar; People v. McQuade ( 110 N. Y. 284 ) where being a former client to	1	1974–1974
Bateman v. United States green ca9 · 1954 1 sentence 1974See People v. Wolter ( 203 N. Y. 484 ) and People v. Genovese (10 N Y 2d 478, supra) which held that the prior opinion of a juror was no bar; Garland v. United States ( 182 F. 2d 801 ) where mere relationship to a prosecuting attorney was no bar; Lane v. United States ( 321 F. 2d 573 , cert. den. 381 U. S. 920 ); Carpintero v. United States ( 398 F. 2d 488 ); Daut v. United States ( 405 F. 2d 312 , cert. den. 402 U. S. 945 ) where being friends of or having attended law school together with the prosecuting attorney was no bar; People v. McQuade ( 110 N. Y. 284 ) where being a former client to	1	1974–1974
People v. . McQuade green ny · 1888 1 sentence 1974See People v. Wolter ( 203 N. Y. 484 ) and People v. Genovese (10 N Y 2d 478, supra) which held that the prior opinion of a juror was no bar; Garland v. United States ( 182 F. 2d 801 ) where mere relationship to a prosecuting attorney was no bar; Lane v. United States ( 321 F. 2d 573 , cert. den. 381 U. S. 920 ); Carpintero v. United States ( 398 F. 2d 488 ); Daut v. United States ( 405 F. 2d 312 , cert. den. 402 U. S. 945 ) where being friends of or having attended law school together with the prosecuting attorney was no bar; People v. McQuade ( 110 N. Y. 284 ) where being a former client to	1	1974–1974
Audry Mack Lane v. United States green ca5 · 1963 1 sentence 1974See People v. Wolter ( 203 N. Y. 484 ) and People v. Genovese (10 N Y 2d 478, supra) which held that the prior opinion of a juror was no bar; Garland v. United States ( 182 F. 2d 801 ) where mere relationship to a prosecuting attorney was no bar; Lane v. United States ( 321 F. 2d 573 , cert. den. 381 U. S. 920 ); Carpintero v. United States ( 398 F. 2d 488 ); Daut v. United States ( 405 F. 2d 312 , cert. den. 402 U. S. 945 ) where being friends of or having attended law school together with the prosecuting attorney was no bar; People v. McQuade ( 110 N. Y. 284 ) where being a former client to	1	1974–1974
Arturo Coll Carpintero v. United States green ca1 · 1968 1 sentence 1974See People v. Wolter ( 203 N. Y. 484 ) and People v. Genovese (10 N Y 2d 478, supra) which held that the prior opinion of a juror was no bar; Garland v. United States ( 182 F. 2d 801 ) where mere relationship to a prosecuting attorney was no bar; Lane v. United States ( 321 F. 2d 573 , cert. den. 381 U. S. 920 ); Carpintero v. United States ( 398 F. 2d 488 ); Daut v. United States ( 405 F. 2d 312 , cert. den. 402 U. S. 945 ) where being friends of or having attended law school together with the prosecuting attorney was no bar; People v. McQuade ( 110 N. Y. 284 ) where being a former client to	1	1974–1974
Manfred Daut v. United States green ca9 · 1969 1 sentence 1974See People v. Wolter ( 203 N. Y. 484 ) and People v. Genovese (10 N Y 2d 478, supra) which held that the prior opinion of a juror was no bar; Garland v. United States ( 182 F. 2d 801 ) where mere relationship to a prosecuting attorney was no bar; Lane v. United States ( 321 F. 2d 573 , cert. den. 381 U. S. 920 ); Carpintero v. United States ( 398 F. 2d 488 ); Daut v. United States ( 405 F. 2d 312 , cert. den. 402 U. S. 945 ) where being friends of or having attended law school together with the prosecuting attorney was no bar; People v. McQuade ( 110 N. Y. 284 ) where being a former client to	1	1974–1974
United States v. Frank Nadaline green ca5 · 1973 1 sentence 1974See People v. Wolter ( 203 N. Y. 484 ) and People v. Genovese (10 N Y 2d 478, supra) which held that the prior opinion of a juror was no bar; Garland v. United States ( 182 F. 2d 801 ) where mere relationship to a prosecuting attorney was no bar; Lane v. United States ( 321 F. 2d 573 , cert. den. 381 U. S. 920 ); Carpintero v. United States ( 398 F. 2d 488 ); Daut v. United States ( 405 F. 2d 312 , cert. den. 402 U. S. 945 ) where being friends of or having attended law school together with the prosecuting attorney was no bar; People v. McQuade ( 110 N. Y. 284 ) where being a former client to	1	1974–1974
Lane v. United States green scotus · 1965 1 sentence 1974See People v. Wolter ( 203 N. Y. 484 ) and People v. Genovese (10 N Y 2d 478, supra) which held that the prior opinion of a juror was no bar; Garland v. United States ( 182 F. 2d 801 ) where mere relationship to a prosecuting attorney was no bar; Lane v. United States ( 321 F. 2d 573 , cert. den. 381 U. S. 920 ); Carpintero v. United States ( 398 F. 2d 488 ); Daut v. United States ( 405 F. 2d 312 , cert. den. 402 U. S. 945 ) where being friends of or having attended law school together with the prosecuting attorney was no bar; People v. McQuade ( 110 N. Y. 284 ) where being a former client to	1	1974–1974
Pace v. Haymarket Co-Operative Bank green scotus · 1971 1 sentence 1974See People v. Wolter ( 203 N. Y. 484 ) and People v. Genovese (10 N Y 2d 478, supra) which held that the prior opinion of a juror was no bar; Garland v. United States ( 182 F. 2d 801 ) where mere relationship to a prosecuting attorney was no bar; Lane v. United States ( 321 F. 2d 573 , cert. den. 381 U. S. 920 ); Carpintero v. United States ( 398 F. 2d 488 ); Daut v. United States ( 405 F. 2d 312 , cert. den. 402 U. S. 945 ) where being friends of or having attended law school together with the prosecuting attorney was no bar; People v. McQuade ( 110 N. Y. 284 ) where being a former client to	1	1974–1974
Wheeler v. State green nyappdiv · 1955 1 sentence 1964(Wheeler v. State of New York, 286 App. Div. 310 .) All of the attorneys on this hearing have submitted able and impressive memoranda of law but the court is satisfied that the ancient rule that release of one joint tort-feasor serves as a release of all joint tort-feasors has no application to the facts in this case.	1	1964–1964
Jewelers' Mercantile Agency, Ltd. v. Jewelers' Weekly Publishing Co. neutral nysupct · 1892 1 sentence 1951Co., 66 Hun 38 ; Mertz v. de Landa, 260 App. Div. 1034 , and Smidt v. Bailey, 132 App. Div. 177 .) The court directs the attention of the attorneys to rule XIII of this court, pursuant to which it may, in a proper case among other things, place the cause at the foot of the calendar, or otherwise postpone the trial, in order that all papers intended for use on the trial (except as therein provided) may be submitted to opposing counsel for inspection, if upon the trial such paper is offered in evidence without having previously been submitted to opposing counsel.	1	1951–1951
Smidt v. Bailey neutral nyappdiv · 1909 1 sentence 1951Co., 66 Hun 38 ; Mertz v. de Landa, 260 App. Div. 1034 , and Smidt v. Bailey, 132 App. Div. 177 .) The court directs the attention of the attorneys to rule XIII of this court, pursuant to which it may, in a proper case among other things, place the cause at the foot of the calendar, or otherwise postpone the trial, in order that all papers intended for use on the trial (except as therein provided) may be submitted to opposing counsel for inspection, if upon the trial such paper is offered in evidence without having previously been submitted to opposing counsel.	1	1951–1951
Lewis v. Krinsky neutral nyappdiv · 1940 1 sentence 1951Co., 66 Hun 38 ; Mertz v. de Landa, 260 App. Div. 1034 , and Smidt v. Bailey, 132 App. Div. 177 .) The court directs the attention of the attorneys to rule XIII of this court, pursuant to which it may, in a proper case among other things, place the cause at the foot of the calendar, or otherwise postpone the trial, in order that all papers intended for use on the trial (except as therein provided) may be submitted to opposing counsel for inspection, if upon the trial such paper is offered in evidence without having previously been submitted to opposing counsel.	1	1951–1951

Where else courts name it

CA 12 (1905–2026) NY 7 (1951–2002) IL 7 (1996–2021) TX 4 (1931–2012) VA 3 (2014–2023) NE 3 (1932–1948) MI 2 (1997–1998) IN 2 (1900–2004) TN 2 (2011–2024) MO 2 (2013–2018) PA 2 (2006–2024) KY 2 (1979–1989) NM 2 (2019–2019) MS 2 (2022–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check