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.
7 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1982–2017 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. Crimminsgreen1 sentence2017Allowing the time sheets into evidence was not harmless error because there was “a significant probability . . . that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error” (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]). | 1 | 1 |
Hiser v. . Davisgreen2 sentences1982In Hiser v Davis ( 234 NY 300, 305 [1922]), the court, citing Bell , stated that “under the law in this state the word ‘child’ in a statute or will, without any other description, would [not] include an illegitimate child.” Arguably, Bell incorrectly interpreted the Legislature’s intent. 1982In Hiser v Davis ( 234 NY 300, 305 [1922]), the court, citing Bell , stated that “under the law in this state the word ‘child’ in a statute or will, without any other description, would [not] include an illegitimate child.” Arguably, Bell incorrectly interpreted the Legislature’s intent. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. Wolfish
green
1 sentence2005A balancing of the four Bell factors shows that the invasion of the defendant’s personal rights as a result of the strip/body cavity search outweighed the need “for the particular search” in this case (Bell v Wolfish, 441 US at 559 ). . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
People v. Grow
green
1 sentence1999Since it was Officer Schoonmaker’s usual practice to stop all bicyclists without proper equipment, there is a sufficient evidentiary basis for the conclusion that the bicycle violation provided the primary motivation for the stop (People v Grow, supra, at 687 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Financial Clearing & Services Corp. v. Theodore
neutral
1 sentence1996Corp. v Theodore, 161 AD2d 362 ; Matter of Ricciardi [Travelers Ins. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Zuckerman v. City of New York
green
1 sentence1993While we are skeptical of Bell’s claim that this lease is valid, we agree with the court that the issue cannot be determined on the basis of the papers submitted and that a hearing is required (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Parnell v. Waldrep
green
2 sentences1984We hold, then, in view of the circumstances here, including, in particular, the constant confinement of the detainees in their cell block, that the practice of depriving them of exercise and recreation constitutes punishment under the Bell test and that their rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated (accord Campbell v Cauthron, 623 F2d 503, 507, supra, and Parnell v Waldrep, 511 F Supp 764, 770 , holding that lack of recreation and exercise violates detainees’ Federal due process rights under the Bell standard; and see Lareau v Manson, 651 F2d 96, 100- 1984We hold, then, in view of the circumstances here, including, in particular, the constant confinement of the detainees in their cell block, that the practice of depriving them of exercise and recreation constitutes punishment under the Bell test and that their rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated (accord Campbell v Cauthron, 623 F2d 503, 507, supra, and Parnell v Waldrep, 511 F Supp 764, 770 , holding that lack of recreation and exercise violates detainees’ Federal due process rights under the Bell standard; and see Lareau v Manson, 651 F2d 96, 100- | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Cooper v. Morin
green
2 sentences1984We hold, then, in view of the circumstances here, including, in particular, the constant confinement of the detainees in their cell block, that the practice of depriving them of exercise and recreation constitutes punishment under the Bell test and that their rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated (accord Campbell v Cauthron, 623 F2d 503, 507, supra, and Parnell v Waldrep, 511 F Supp 764, 770 , holding that lack of recreation and exercise violates detainees’ Federal due process rights under the Bell standard; and see Lareau v Manson, 651 F2d 96, 100- 1984We hold, then, in view of the circumstances here, including, in particular, the constant confinement of the detainees in their cell block, that the practice of depriving them of exercise and recreation constitutes punishment under the Bell test and that their rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated (accord Campbell v Cauthron, 623 F2d 503, 507, supra, and Parnell v Waldrep, 511 F Supp 764, 770 , holding that lack of recreation and exercise violates detainees’ Federal due process rights under the Bell standard; and see Lareau v Manson, 651 F2d 96, 100- | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.