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 1900–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morgan v. . Hedstromgreen2 sentences2005“The strict adherence to the letter of a statute will not be permitted to defeat the general purpose and manifest policy intended to be promoted, and a statute will not be construed to work an injustice or absurdity.” (Grant, 154 Misc 2d at 573-574 , quoting Sinhogar v Parry, 98 Misc 2d 28, 35 [Sup Ct, NY County 1979].) “When the courts make an exception from the letter of a statute, because the subject excepted is not within its spirit and meaning, they do so to avoid a result so unreasonable or absurd as to force the conviction upon the mind that the excepted subject could not have been inte 1979As the court stated in Morgan v Hedstrom ( 164 NY 224, 230 ): "When the courts make an exception from the letter of the statute, because the subject excepted is not within its spirit and meaning, they do so to avoid a result so unreasonble or absurd as to force the conviction upon the mind that the excepted subject could not have been intended by the legislature”. | 2 | 6 |
Sinhogar v. Parrygreen2 sentences2005“The strict adherence to the letter of a statute will not be permitted to defeat the general purpose and manifest policy intended to be promoted, and a statute will not be construed to work an injustice or absurdity.” (Grant, 154 Misc 2d at 573-574 , quoting Sinhogar v Parry, 98 Misc 2d 28, 35 [Sup Ct, NY County 1979].) “When the courts make an exception from the letter of a statute, because the subject excepted is not within its spirit and meaning, they do so to avoid a result so unreasonable or absurd as to force the conviction upon the mind that the excepted subject could not have been inte 1992(Sinhogar v Parry, 98 Misc 2d 28, 35 [Sup Ct, NY County 1979].) "When the courts make an exception from the letter of a statute, because the subject excepted is not within its spirit and meaning, they do so to avoid a result so unreasonable or absurd as to force the conviction upon the mind that the excepted subject could not have been intended by the legislature”. | 2 | 2 |
Roseann R. v. William R.green1 sentence1992(Morgan v Hedstrom, 164 NY 224, 230 [1900]; see also the reasoning in Matter of Roseann R. v William R., 119 Misc 2d 874 [Fam Ct, Queens County 1983].) Indeed, Douglas J. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Riggs v. . Palmer
green
2 sentences1943A complete answer to that argument is found in Bacon’s Abridgement and quoted in Riggs v. Palmer (supra, p. 510 ): “ ‘ By an equitable construction, a case not within the letter of the statute is sometimes holden to be within the meaning, because it is within the mischief for which a remedy is provided. 1900It will suffice to refer to Riggs v. Palmer ( 115 N. Y. 506 ) and Holy Trinity Church v. U. S. ( 143 U. S. 457 ) in which the rule is discussed and illustrated. | 2 | 1900–1943 |
Commissioner of Social Services v. Grant
green
1 sentence2005“The strict adherence to the letter of a statute will not be permitted to defeat the general purpose and manifest policy intended to be promoted, and a statute will not be construed to work an injustice or absurdity.” (Grant, 154 Misc 2d at 573-574 , quoting Sinhogar v Parry, 98 Misc 2d 28, 35 [Sup Ct, NY County 1979].) “When the courts make an exception from the letter of a statute, because the subject excepted is not within its spirit and meaning, they do so to avoid a result so unreasonable or absurd as to force the conviction upon the mind that the excepted subject could not have been inte | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States
green
1 sentence1900It will suffice to refer to Riggs v. Palmer ( 115 N. Y. 506 ) and Holy Trinity Church v. U. S. ( 143 U. S. 457 ) in which the rule is discussed and illustrated. | 1 | 1900–1900 |
Lyon v. Manhattan Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1900Co., 142 N. Y. 298, 303 ; Rogers v. Bradshaw, 20 Johns. 735, 744 .) When the courts make an exception from the letter of a statute, because the subject excepted is not within its spirit and meaning, they do so to avoid a result so unreasonable or absurd as to force the conviction upon the mind that the excepted subject could not have been intended by the legislature, and that if it had been presented to that body, it would have disclaimed any intention to include it. | 1 | 1900–1900 |
Rogers v. Bradshaw
green
1 sentence1900Co., 142 N. Y. 298, 303 ; Rogers v. Bradshaw, 20 Johns. 735, 744 .) When the courts make an exception from the letter of a statute, because the subject excepted is not within its spirit and meaning, they do so to avoid a result so unreasonable or absurd as to force the conviction upon the mind that the excepted subject could not have been intended by the legislature, and that if it had been presented to that body, it would have disclaimed any intention to include it. | 1 | 1900–1900 |