7 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hearst Corp. v. Clynegreen2 sentences1995Inasmuch as any determination on this appeal would not affect the rights of the parties, and the issue before us does not satisfy the criteria for an exception to the mootness doctrine (see, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, supra, at 714-715), the appeal must be dismissed. 1994Furthermore, this case does not satisfy any of the criteria for an exception to the mootness doctrine set forth in Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne ( 50 NY2d 707, 714-715 ). | 4 | 6 |
Roe v. Wadered1 sentence2009An issue is moot when “it may not properly be decided by this court unless it is found to be within the exception to the doctrine which permits the courts to preserve for review important and recurring issues which, by virtue of their relatively brief existence, would be rendered otherwise nonreviewable.” (See Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980], citing Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 125 [1973].) In Matter of Hearst, the Court of Appeals identified three factors which would justify an exception to the mootness doctrine: “(1) a likelihood of repetition, either between the parties o | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Gold-Greenberger v. Human Res. Admin. of the City of New York
green
1 sentence1993Although there is a possibility of repetition and petitioners’ challenge to the validity of the City ordinance provision raises a significant question not previously passed on, there is nothing in the record to suggest that this case involves a phenomenon typically evading review (see, Matter of Gold-Greenberger v Human Resources Admin., supra; Matter of Roadway Express v Commissioner of N. Y. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Shapiro v. United States
green
1 sentence1975In assuming their custody he has accepted the incident obligation to permit inspection.” The doctrine was reiterated in Shapiro v United States ( 335 US 1 ) and more recently in Grosso v United States ( 390 US 62 ) where the Supreme Court set forth the criteria of the exception as: (1) the record keeping must be regulatory in nature; (2) the records required to be kept must be of a kind which the regulated party has customarily maintained; and (3) the records must have assumed "public aspects” which render them analogous to public records. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Grosso v. United States
green
1 sentence1975In assuming their custody he has accepted the incident obligation to permit inspection.” The doctrine was reiterated in Shapiro v United States ( 335 US 1 ) and more recently in Grosso v United States ( 390 US 62 ) where the Supreme Court set forth the criteria of the exception as: (1) the record keeping must be regulatory in nature; (2) the records required to be kept must be of a kind which the regulated party has customarily maintained; and (3) the records must have assumed "public aspects” which render them analogous to public records. | 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.