cases holding defense (New York) · Go Syfert
← New York issues

cases holding defense in New York

6 New York opinions name it 4 courts 1904–1988 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Dexter Sulphite Pulp & Paper Co. v. Hearstgreen
nyappdiv · 1923 · cited in 1 New York opinions naming this issue, 1937–1937
1 sentence

1937(Dexter Sulphite Pulp & Paper Co. v. Hearst, 206 App. Div. 101, 106, 107 .) It should also be noted that, but for the unfounded motion to dismiss the complaint in action No. 2, it would have been first at issue and appeared first upon the calendar.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Williams green
ny · 1980
1 sentence

1988In People v Williams ( 50 NY2d 1043, 1046 ), Judge Fuchsberg, in dissent, observed with respect to this defense in a weapon possession prosecution: "The two threads running through each of the cases holding the defense available are the inadvertence of defendant’s original acquisition of the item and the brevity of his exercise of control over it.” Here, defendant testified that he grabbed a plastic bag away from an individual nicknamed "Skull” in the confines of a social club from which he was, shortly thereafter, ejected.

11988–1988
People v. La Pella green
ny · 1936
2 sentences

1980Thus, in People v La Pella ( 272 NY 81 ) the court held the charge ought to have been given where defendant came upon a firearm in a public rest room and kept it on his person until he surrendered it to a police officer.

1980Thus, in People v La Pella ( 272 N.Y. 81 ) the court held the charge ought to have been given where defendant came upon a firearm in a public rest room and kept it on his person until he surrendered it to a police officer.

11980–1980
Curry v. Wiborn neutral
nyappdiv · 1896
1 sentence

1923(Curry v. Wiborn, 12 App. Div. 1 ; Hirsh v. Manhattan R.

11923–1923
Dietz v. . Farish green
ny · 1880
1 sentence

1911The general rule is the other way.” Dietz v. Farish, 79 N. Y. 520 , at page 535.

11911–1911
Root v. . Wadhams green
· 1887
1 sentence

1904Attention has been called to the case of Root v. Wadhams ( 107 N. Y. 384 ), and other similar cases, in which it is held: “ By the word ‘ appurtenance ’ nothing passes except such incorporeal easements, rights or privileges as are strictly necessary and essential to the proper enjoyment of the estate granted; a mere convenience is not sufficient to create such a right or easement.” Each one of the cases holding this doctrine to which we have been cited was decided upon its own peculiar facts, which do not bring it within the principle we deem applicable to the case under review, and we think t

11904–1904

Where else courts name it

NY 6 (1904–1988) WA 5 (1903–1963) IL 3 (1888–1929) LA 3 (1959–1989) CA 3 (1964–1983) TN 2 (1900–1999) GA 2 (1988–1994) WI 2 (1893–1897) NE 2 (1894–1898) IN 2 (1882–1899) MO 2 (1960–1966) NJ 2 (1957–1988) IA 2 (1896–1925) TX 2 (1877–1931)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check