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 1972–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keith v. New York State Teachers' Retirement Systemgreen1 sentence1977A reading of the record indicates that the Criminal Term did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a sanity hearing sua sponte (see People v Rivera, 50 AD2d 805 ; see, also, People v Mac Cumber, 46 AD2d 938 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Secor v. Baron Motor Carriers, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1979We reiterate that there is no statutory provision in this State which requires a court to order a sanity hearing sua sponte whenever defendant has a history of mental problems (People v Rivera, 50 AD2d 805 ; cf. People v Armlin, 37 NY2d 167 ). 1977A reading of the record indicates that the Criminal Term did not abuse its discretion in failing to order a sanity hearing sua sponte (see People v Rivera, 50 AD2d 805 ; see, also, People v Mac Cumber, 46 AD2d 938 ). | 3 | 1977–1979 |
People v. Whitfield
neutral
1 sentence2012In People v Whitfield ( 97 Misc 2d 236 [Monroe County Ct 1978]), an issue in the case centered around the defendant’s attorney’s participation in the examination, involving a sanity defense. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
People v. Armlin
green
1 sentence1979We reiterate that there is no statutory provision in this State which requires a court to order a sanity hearing sua sponte whenever defendant has a history of mental problems (People v Rivera, 50 AD2d 805 ; cf. People v Armlin, 37 NY2d 167 ). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
People v. Armlin
neutral
1 sentence1975There is no statute which requires a sanity hearing in every instance in which it is claimed that the defendant has a mental problem or a history of psychiatric treatment (People v Armlin, 43 AD2d 782 ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Nicholson
green
1 sentence1975Nor was a Huntley hearing required since “The issue as to whether the confession was illegally obtained is waived by the guilty plea” where a defendant has knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty (People v Nicholson, 11 NY2d 1067, 1068 ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People v. Silver
green
1 sentence1975(People v Silver, supra, pp 481-482 .) The defendant here effectively rebutted the sanity presumption, by the introduction of prior psychiatric reports which tended to establish incompetency. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People of State of New York v. Pugach
green
1 sentence1972The County Court order provided that, pursuant to People v. Hudson (19 N Y 2d 137), the relator should have his hearing before a Judge other than Judge Martinis, who presided at Pugach’s trial and at the original sanity hearing ( 33 Misc 2d 938 ). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.