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 3 courts 1952–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Aleynikovgreen2 sentences2022This follows from the principle that, generally, unless a contrary intent is clear, lawmakers employ words as they are commonly or ordinarily employed’” (People v Holz, 35 NY3d 55 , 59 [2020], quoting People v Aleynikov, 31 NY3d 383, 397 [2018]; see also McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes §§ 232, 234). -6- -7- No. 44 The majority and I consider the same guideposts but reach the opposite conclusion as to what definition those sources suggest applies here. 2020This follows from the principle that, generally, unless a contrary intent is clear, lawmakers employ words as they are commonly or ordinarily employed” (People v Aleynikov, 31 NY3d 383, 397 [2018] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Finleygreen1 sentence2018This follows from the principle that, generally, unless a contrary intent is clear, lawmakers employ "words as they are commonly or ordinarily employed" ( People v Finley , 10 NY3d 647, 654 [2008], quoting McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 232, Comment). {**31 NY3d at 398}Dictionaries give two meanings of the word "tangible" that are pertinent for our purposes. | 1 | 1 |
Marrone v. Washington Jockey Clubgreen1 sentence2018This follows from the principle that the purchase of an event ticket "ma[kes] a contract" that "binds the person of the maker" so that the holder of a ticket who is wrongly ejected has the "right . . . to sue upon the contract for the breach" ( Marrone v Washington Jockey Club , 227 US 633, 636 [1913]). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
People Ex Rel. Burnham v. . Flynn
green
1 sentence2018Under general contract principles, a ticket holder, "being refused admission, is entitled to recover the amount paid for the ticket, and, undoubtedly, such necessary expenses as were incurred" ( Burnham , 189 NY at 186 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rossman v. La Grega
green
1 sentence1975This follows rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (8[c]) and is in accordance with "the majority rule in this country that in all negligence actions * * * the defendant claiming contributory negligence of the plaintiff has the burden of showing it” (Rossman v La Grega, 28 NY2d 300, 304 ). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
In Re Acquiring Title by City of New York
green
1 sentence1952Co., 151 App. Div. 50, 56 ; Matter of Superintendent of Highways, Frankfort, 193 Misc. 617 .) This follows the principle declared in Matter of City of New York ( 198 N. Y. 84, 88 ): “ By analogy it would seem that when the state compels a man to give up his land for public use, and permits him to recover, not what he thinks it is worth, but only its fair market value, he should at least have the right to prove every element that can fairly enter into the question of market value.” (See Annotation on “ Special Value or adaptability of property for purpose for which it is taken, as an element of | 1 | 1952–1952 |
In re the Superintendent of Highways of Frankfort
neutral
1 sentence1952Co., 151 App. Div. 50, 56 ; Matter of Superintendent of Highways, Frankfort, 193 Misc. 617 .) This follows the principle declared in Matter of City of New York ( 198 N. Y. 84, 88 ): “ By analogy it would seem that when the state compels a man to give up his land for public use, and permits him to recover, not what he thinks it is worth, but only its fair market value, he should at least have the right to prove every element that can fairly enter into the question of market value.” (See Annotation on “ Special Value or adaptability of property for purpose for which it is taken, as an element of | 1 | 1952–1952 |
In re the New York, Westchester & Boston Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1952Co., 151 App. Div. 50, 56 ; Matter of Superintendent of Highways, Frankfort, 193 Misc. 617 .) This follows the principle declared in Matter of City of New York ( 198 N. Y. 84, 88 ): “ By analogy it would seem that when the state compels a man to give up his land for public use, and permits him to recover, not what he thinks it is worth, but only its fair market value, he should at least have the right to prove every element that can fairly enter into the question of market value.” (See Annotation on “ Special Value or adaptability of property for purpose for which it is taken, as an element of | 1 | 1952–1952 |
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.