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.
6 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'ngreen2 sentences2002We reverse. “[W]hether the action is pleaded in strict products liability, breach of warranty or negligence, it is a consumer’s burden to show that a defect in the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury” (Tardella v RJR Nabisco, 178 AD2d 737 ; see Santorelli v Apple & Eve, 282 AD2d 731, 732 ). “ ‘The cornerstone rule in products liability is that proof of mere injury furnishes no rational basis for inferring that the product was defective for its intended use.’ * * * The plaintiff must demonstrate, at a minimum, that her injuries are the direct result of the [product] applied * 1986"The cornerstone rule in products liability is that proof of mere injury furnishes no rational basis for inferring that the product was defective for its intended use” (Helene Curtis Indus. v Pruitt, 385 F2d 841, 853, cert denied 391 US 913 ). | 1 | 2 |
Vantage Petroleum, Bay Isle Oil Co., Inc. v. Bd. of Assessment Review of the Town of Babylongreen1 sentence2007The doctrine is applied circumspectly to tax assessment cases because, although a prior year’s valuation is of some relevance (see Vantage Petroleum, Bay Isle Oil Co. v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Babylon, 61 NY2d 695, 698 [1984]), “[i]t is of the essence of an assessment that it fixes value as of a certain time” and, accordingly, “[e]ach annual proceeding is separate and distinct from every other” (People ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Staatsburg Water Co. v. Staatsburg Fire Districtgreen1 sentence2007Turning to collateral estoppel, a cornerstone of that doctrine is the notion of “fairness” (Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents of State of N.Y., 72 NY2d 261, 268 [1988]), and it has been characterized as “an elastic doctrine” that should not be “mechanically applied” (Staatsburg Water Co. v Staatsburg Fire Dist., 72 NY2d 147, 153 [1988]). | 1 | 1 |
Halyalkar v. Board of Regentsgreen1 sentence2007Turning to collateral estoppel, a cornerstone of that doctrine is the notion of “fairness” (Matter of Halyalkar v Board of Regents of State of N.Y., 72 NY2d 261, 268 [1988]), and it has been characterized as “an elastic doctrine” that should not be “mechanically applied” (Staatsburg Water Co. v Staatsburg Fire Dist., 72 NY2d 147, 153 [1988]). | 1 | 1 |
Norman v. Town Board of Town of Orangetowngreen1 sentence2002We reverse. “[W]hether the action is pleaded in strict products liability, breach of warranty or negligence, it is a consumer’s burden to show that a defect in the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury” (Tardella v RJR Nabisco, 178 AD2d 737 ; see Santorelli v Apple & Eve, 282 AD2d 731, 732 ). “ ‘The cornerstone rule in products liability is that proof of mere injury furnishes no rational basis for inferring that the product was defective for its intended use.’ * * * The plaintiff must demonstrate, at a minimum, that her injuries are the direct result of the [product] applied * | 1 | 1 |
Santorelli v. Apple & Eve, L.P.green1 sentence2002We reverse. “[W]hether the action is pleaded in strict products liability, breach of warranty or negligence, it is a consumer’s burden to show that a defect in the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury” (Tardella v RJR Nabisco, 178 AD2d 737 ; see Santorelli v Apple & Eve, 282 AD2d 731, 732 ). “ ‘The cornerstone rule in products liability is that proof of mere injury furnishes no rational basis for inferring that the product was defective for its intended use.’ * * * The plaintiff must demonstrate, at a minimum, that her injuries are the direct result of the [product] applied * | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dodtgreen1 sentence1988Therefore, we find that the issue of the legality of defendant’s arrest should have been a cornerstone of the defense, in view of the fact that, if the arrest was held to be illegal, then the incriminating statements resulting from such an illegal arrest would have been suppressed, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine (see, United States v Crews, 445 US 463, 471-473 [1980]; People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 417 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Crewsgreen1 sentence1988Therefore, we find that the issue of the legality of defendant’s arrest should have been a cornerstone of the defense, in view of the fact that, if the arrest was held to be illegal, then the incriminating statements resulting from such an illegal arrest would have been suppressed, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine (see, United States v Crews, 445 US 463, 471-473 [1980]; People v Dodt, 61 NY2d 408, 417 [1984]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v. D'Anna
neutral
1 sentence2024In opposition, the plaintiff failed to present evidence of any conduct or communications by the New Point defendants that provided Alter with the authority to act on their behalf ( see Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP v D'Anna , 212 AD3d 438, 439 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Tardella v. RJR Nabisco, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002We reverse. “[W]hether the action is pleaded in strict products liability, breach of warranty or negligence, it is a consumer’s burden to show that a defect in the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury” (Tardella v RJR Nabisco, 178 AD2d 737 ; see Santorelli v Apple & Eve, 282 AD2d 731, 732 ). “ ‘The cornerstone rule in products liability is that proof of mere injury furnishes no rational basis for inferring that the product was defective for its intended use.’ * * * The plaintiff must demonstrate, at a minimum, that her injuries are the direct result of the [product] applied * | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Villariny v. Aveda Corp.
green
1 sentence2002The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that there was no causal relationship between its product and the plaintiffs disease, an essential element of the cause of action to recover damages for breach of implied warranty (see Villariny v Aveda Corp., 264 AD2d 415, 416 ; Kracker v Spartan Chem. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
People v. Doe
green
1 sentence1997In any event, we reject the contention of defendant that the conversation was privileged {see, People v Harrell, 87 AD2d 21 , affd 59 NY2d 620 ; Matter of A. & M., 61 AD2d 426 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Harrell
green
1 sentence1997In any event, we reject the contention of defendant that the conversation was privileged {see, People v Harrell, 87 AD2d 21 , affd 59 NY2d 620 ; Matter of A. & M., 61 AD2d 426 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence1997He did not obtain a judicial determination of that motion and did not object when the People presented proof of that conversation at trial, and he used the conversation as the cornerstone of his defense that he did not kill the victim intentionally. “[C]ourts are loath to second-guess a litigant’s ‘highly judgmental function’ of deciding when and to what end to assert a right or to forego reliance on it” (People v Rodriguez, 50 NY2d 553, 557-558 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Harrell
green
1 sentence1997In any event, we reject the contention of defendant that the conversation was privileged {see, People v Harrell, 87 AD2d 21 , affd 59 NY2d 620 ; Matter of A. & M., 61 AD2d 426 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Cahill v. Inecto, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986The plaintiff must demonstrate, at a minimum, that her injuries are the direct result of the products applied to her hair, and that those products are the sole possible cause of those injuries (see, Cahill v Inecto, Inc., 208 App Div 191, 194 ; McGuiness v Roux Distrib. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.