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 5 courts 1975–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Floyd Y.green1 sentence2014Prior to Hamilton , one New York State jurist suggested that “a court conducting a hearing on a claim of innocence should admit into evidence any reliable evidence whether in admissible form or not.” (People v Cole at 543 .) In contrast, the Court of Appeals has held that due process “protects against the admission of unreliable hearsay evidence, where such hearsay is more prejudicial than probative.” (Matter of State of New York v Floyd Y., 22 NY3d 95, 98 [2013] [emphasis added].) In the context of an accused presenting trial evidence, courts have recognized a constitutionally based exception | 1 | 1 |
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.green1 sentence2012In Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc. ( 418 US 323, 347 [1974]) the Court held that more limited, but significant, protection was available “for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual”; in such cases, the Constitution prohibits imposition of “liability without fault”—i.e., liability imposed on someone not at least negligent in believing the “defamatory falsehood” to be true. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Browngreen1 sentence1991(See, People v Brown, 104 Misc 2d 157, 163 [Crim Ct, Queens County 1980].) The right to the discovery of warrant applications which is necessary to enable a defendant to adequately mount a constitutionally based challenge to the warrant, at times, must be balanced against the People’s right to protect the identity of citizen informers. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences2012New York Times recognized a constitutionally-based rule “that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made . . . with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” ( 376 US at 279-280 ). 1975Defendants Stoessel and WCBS moved for summary judgment, urging that the broadcasts were governed by the constitutionally based privilege which has evolved from New York Times Co. v Sullivan ( 376 US 254, 279-280 ) wherein it was held that a public official could not recover damages for a defamatory falsehood about his official conduct "unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice’— that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” It was argued, alternatively, that the New York Times standard of actual malice was applicab | 2 | 1975–2012 |
Immuno AG. v. Moor-Jankowski
green
1 sentence1991(See, Immuno AG. v Moor-Jankowski, supra.) Rather than eliminating or reducing the level of constitutional protection to be afforded the challenged articles, the added dimension of possible criminality underscores the importance of shielding the Times defendants’ statements from attack. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
O'Neill v. Oakgrove Construction, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990Capital Newspapers and Ms. Vecsey also seek the qualified protection of section 79-h of the Civil Rights Law, which in a recent amendment codifies the three-part test adopted in O’ Neill (supra), and extends the privilege to unpublished, nonconfidential information and sources. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence1989IV The final reason given by the majority for its holding is the assertion that an affirmance would be contrary to our decision in People v Rodriguez (supra). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
green
1 sentence1975Co. v Butts ( 388 US 130 ) (which extended the New York Times case to public figures), or because the statements involved matters of public concern or interest and hence were within the ambit of Rosenbloom v Metromedia ( 403 US 29 ) (which further extended the New York Times case to a private individual in connection with the individual’s involvement in an event of public interest). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc.
red
1 sentence1975Co. v Butts ( 388 US 130 ) (which extended the New York Times case to public figures), or because the statements involved matters of public concern or interest and hence were within the ambit of Rosenbloom v Metromedia ( 403 US 29 ) (which further extended the New York Times case to a private individual in connection with the individual’s involvement in an event of public interest). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.