6 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1960–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Dostgreen2 sentences2026The application of this modified standard would ensure that the legislature's intent in enacting article 263 is met, while also guaranteeing that the statute is being applied in a manner that does not infringe on an individual's constitutional rights ( see Ferber , 458 US at 773-774 ; Dost , 636 F Supp at 832 ). 2026The application of this modified standard would ensure that the legislature's intent in enacting article 263 is met, while also guaranteeing that the statute is being applied in a manner that does not infringe on an individual's constitutional rights ( see Ferber , 458 US at 773-774; Dost , 636 F Supp at 832). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hornergreen2 sentences2026In applying the modified Dost test to the facts of this case, defendant's conduct is prohibited under Penal Law § 263.15 (Penal Law §§ 263.00 [3], [6]; Dost , 636 F Supp at 832; Horner , 300 AD2d at 843). 2026In applying the modified Dost test to the facts of this case, defendant's conduct is prohibited under Penal Law § 263.15 (Penal Law §§ 263.00 [3], [6]; Dost , 636 F Supp at 832 ; Horner , 300 AD2d at 843 ). | 1 | 1 |
New York v. Ferbergreen2 sentences2026The application of this modified standard would ensure that the legislature's intent in enacting article 263 is met, while also guaranteeing that the statute is being applied in a manner that does not infringe on an individual's constitutional rights ( see Ferber , 458 US at 773-774; Dost , 636 F Supp at 832). 2026The application of this modified standard would ensure that the legislature's intent in enacting article 263 is met, while also guaranteeing that the statute is being applied in a manner that does not infringe on an individual's constitutional rights ( see Ferber , 458 US at 773-774 ; Dost , 636 F Supp at 832 ). | 1 | 1 |
Sorto v. Floresgreen1 sentence2024For children, however, there exists a modified standard in which minors are to be held to the standard of a reasonably prudent child of similar age, experience, intelligence, and degree of development ( see PJI 2:23, 2:48; Sorto v Flores , 241 AD2d 446, 447 [2d Dept 1997] [no viable negligent supervision claims against mother and grandfather of five and one-half-year-old boy whose bicycle collided with plaintiff three-year-old]), unless such child engages in an inherently dangerous activity which would result in their being held to the general reasonably prudent person standard ( see PJI Costa | 1 | 1 |
Cover v. Cohengreen1 sentence1986There was no evidence that, at any time prior to the accident, defendant was put on notice of a danger or defect in the product and, clearly, the modification itself cannot be received as an admission that defendant knew that the original warning label was inadequate (see, Cover v Cohen, supra, at pp 274-275). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reiszel v. Fontana
neutral
1 sentence2024For children, however, there exists a modified standard in which minors are to be held to the standard of a reasonably prudent child of similar age, experience, intelligence, and degree of development ( see PJI 2:23, 2:48; Sorto v Flores , 241 AD2d 446, 447 [2d Dept 1997] [no viable negligent supervision claims against mother and grandfather of five and one-half-year-old boy whose bicycle collided with plaintiff three-year-old]), unless such child engages in an inherently dangerous activity which would result in their being held to the general reasonably prudent person standard ( see PJI Costa | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Costa v. Hicks
green
1 sentence2024For children, however, there exists a modified standard in which minors are to be held to the standard of a reasonably prudent child of similar age, experience, intelligence, and degree of development ( see PJI 2:23, 2:48; Sorto v Flores , 241 AD2d 446, 447 [2d Dept 1997] [no viable negligent supervision claims against mother and grandfather of five and one-half-year-old boy whose bicycle collided with plaintiff three-year-old]), unless such child engages in an inherently dangerous activity which would result in their being held to the general reasonably prudent person standard ( see PJI Costa | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Cumbo v. Valente
green
1 sentence1997Loftus, Inc. v White, 85 NY2d 874; Cumbo v Valente, 118 AD2d 679 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
J. R. Loftus, Inc. v. White
green
1 sentence1997Loftus, Inc. v White, 85 NY2d 874; Cumbo v Valente, 118 AD2d 679 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United States
green
1 sentence1971Joseph’s Stock Yards Co. v. United States ( 298 U. S. 38, 53 ), the court modified the rule by stating: “this judicial duty to exercise an independent judgment does not require or justify disregard of the weight which may properly attach to findings upon hearing and evidence. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Outlet Embroidery Co. v. Derwent Mills, Ltd.
green
1 sentence1960As Judge Cabdozo pointed out in Outlet Embroidery Co. v. Derwent Mills ( 254 N. Y. 179, 183 ), “If literalness is sheer absurdity, we are to seek some other meaning whereby reason will be instilled and absurdity avoided ”. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.