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 1998–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lichtman v. Grossbardgreen2 sentences2019As such, and notably, the Appellate Division would not have applied due diligence principles to the People's claim that the doctrine of laches was an insurmountable bar to his request for coram nobis relief ( Lichtman v. Grossbard , 73 N.Y.2d 792 , 794, 537 N.Y.S.2d 19 , 533 N.E.2d 1048 [1988] [Court cannot grant relief on theory not argued below] ); Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 17:1 at 589-591 [3d ed rev 2005] ). 2019As such, and notably, the Appellate Division would not have applied due diligence principles to the People's claim that the doctrine of laches was an insurmountable bar to his request for coram nobis relief ( Lichtman v. Grossbard , 73 N.Y.2d 792 , 794, 537 N.Y.S.2d 19 , 533 N.E.2d 1048 [1988] [Court cannot grant relief on theory not argued below] ); Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals, § 17:1 at 589-591 [3d ed rev 2005] ). | 1 | 2 |
Zito v. Zabarskygreen1 sentence2008However, the Frye test is not that exacting.” (Zito v Zabarsky, 28 AD3d 42, 46 [2006].) Here, the majority has “set an insurmountable standard.” (Parker, 7 NY3d at 447 .) It essentially posits that in a case such as this, Frye requires that the medical literature conclusively establish that an allegedly offending substance not only have the potential to cause illness but that it always causes illness. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.
green
2 sentences2022We must, 5 Of course, the issue is not that Dr. Moline relied on tests other than those she performed herself (dissenting op at 22-23), but rather that the test on which she relied was itself insufficient to support Dr. Moline’s conclusion. - 11 - - 12 - No. 24 as always, strike a balance between the need to exclude “unreliable or speculative information” as to causation with our obligation to ensure that we have not set “an insurmountable standard that would effectively deprive toxic tort plaintiffs of their day in court” (Parker, 7 NY3d at 447 ). 2022The majority has essentially adopted an impossible standard for plaintiffs—even though this Court has rejected that exact approach, explaining in Parker that “it is . . . - 25 - - 26 - No. 24 inappropriate to set an insurmountable standard that would effectively deprive toxic tort plaintiffs of their day in court” ( 7 NY3d at 447 ). | 3 | 2008–2022 |
Beck-Nichols v. Bianco
green
1 sentence2018Contrary to petitioners' argument, Supreme Court did not apply a heightened or insurmountable standard of review ( see Beck-Nichols v Bianco , 20 NY3d at 559 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Schrager v. R. H. Macy & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1998The refusal of the FCC to fulfill the role assigned to it created an insurmountable bar to the specific performance of the agreement (see, Sini v Hyngstrom, 109 AD2d 671 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.