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 3 courts 1996–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pataki v. New York State Assemblygreen2 sentences2012Moreover, contrary to defendants’ contention, the Speech or Debate Clause defense may be waived (see Pataki v New York State Assembly, 4 NY3d 75, 88 [2004]), and it was waived here based on defendants’ failure to raise that defense in a timely manner (see Litvinov v Hodson, 34 AD3d 1332, 1332-1333 [2006]). 2012Moreover, contrary to defendants’ contention, the Speech or Debate Clause defense may be waived (see Pataki v New York State Assembly, 4 NY3d 75, 88 [2004]), and it was waived here based on defendants’ failure to raise that defense in a timely manner (see Litvinov v Hodson, 34 AD3d 1332, 1332-1333 [2006]). | 2 | 3 |
Palermo v. Tacconegreen2 sentences2012Palermo v Taccone, 79 AD3d 1616, 1620 [2010]). 2012Palermo v Taccone, 79 AD3d 1616, 1620 [2010]). | 2 | 3 |
Litvinov v. Hodsongreen2 sentences2012Moreover, contrary to defendants’ contention, the Speech or Debate Clause defense may be waived (see Pataki v New York State Assembly, 4 NY3d 75, 88 [2004]), and it was waived here based on defendants’ failure to raise that defense in a timely manner (see Litvinov v Hodson, 34 AD3d 1332, 1332-1333 [2006]). 2012Moreover, contrary to defendants’ contention, the Speech or Debate Clause defense may be waived (see Pataki v New York State Assembly, 4 NY3d 75, 88 [2004]), and it was waived here based on defendants’ failure to raise that defense in a timely manner (see Litvinov v Hodson, 34 AD3d 1332, 1332-1333 [2006]). | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Brewstergreen1 sentence2008In cases such as the instant matter, our task is different—we must “apply the Clause in such a way as to insure the independence of the legislature without altering the historic balance of the three co-equal branches of Government” (United States v Brewster, 408 US at 508). . | 1 | 1 |
Powell v. McCormackgreen2 sentences2004We therefore think it unnecessary to decide the standing or Speech or Debate issue, and we proceed to the merits (cf. Powell v McCormack, 395 US 486, 501-502 [1969] [where certain defendants could not plead the bar of the Speech or Debate Clause, it was held unnecessary to discuss the issue as it affected the other defendants]). 2004We therefore think it unnecessary to decide the standing or Speech or Debate issue, and we proceed to the merits ( cf. Powell v McCormack, 395 US 486, 501-502 [1969] [where certain defendants could not plead the bar of the Speech or Debate Clause, it was held unnecessary to discuss the issue as it affected the other defendants]). | 1 | 1 |
Fossella v. Dinkinsgreen2 sentences2004Both of these defenses, assuming them to be valid, may be waived (see CPLR 3018 [b]; Matter of Fossella v Dinkins, 66 NY2d 162, 167-168 [1985]). 2004Both of these defenses, assuming them to be valid, may be waived ( see CPLR 3018 [b]; Matter of Fossella v Dinkins, 66 NY2d 162, 167-168 [1985]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State
green
1 sentence2008Petitioner argues that respondent’s actions constituted a waiver by him of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege (see Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 265 AD2d 277 , 278 [1st Dept 1999]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kilbourn v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1996Even if a violation of the Assembly’s rules were demonstrated, such violation would not abrogate Speech or Debate Clause immunity (see, Kilbourn v Thompson, 103 US 168, 203 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.