6 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1973–2003 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blair v. United States
green
2 sentences1976(Blair v. United States, 250 US 273 ; People v. Doe [Byk], 247 App Div 324 , affd without opn 272 NY 473 .)” (Matter of L&S Hosp. & Institutional Supplies Co. v Hynes, 51 AD2d 515 .) Petitioners claim that the Grand Jury lacks a de facto existence and organization has been examined and found to be without merit. 1976(Blair v United States, 250 US 273 ; People v Doe [Byk], 247 App Div 324 , affd without opn 272 NY 473 .) The Deputy Attorney-General has authority to appear before the Grand Jury (Steinman v Nadjari, 49 AD2d 456 ) and to issue subpoenas on its behalf. | 2 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Doe
green
2 sentences1976(Blair v. United States, 250 US 273 ; People v. Doe [Byk], 247 App Div 324 , affd without opn 272 NY 473 .)” (Matter of L&S Hosp. & Institutional Supplies Co. v Hynes, 51 AD2d 515 .) Petitioners claim that the Grand Jury lacks a de facto existence and organization has been examined and found to be without merit. 1976(Blair v United States, 250 US 273 ; People v Doe [Byk], 247 App Div 324 , affd without opn 272 NY 473 .) The Deputy Attorney-General has authority to appear before the Grand Jury (Steinman v Nadjari, 49 AD2d 456 ) and to issue subpoenas on its behalf. | 2 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Doe
green
2 sentences1976(Blair v. United States, 250 US 273 ; People v. Doe [Byk], 247 App Div 324 , affd without opn 272 NY 473 .)” (Matter of L&S Hosp. & Institutional Supplies Co. v Hynes, 51 AD2d 515 .) Petitioners claim that the Grand Jury lacks a de facto existence and organization has been examined and found to be without merit. 1976(Blair v United States, 250 US 273 ; People v Doe [Byk], 247 App Div 324 , affd without opn 272 NY 473 .) The Deputy Attorney-General has authority to appear before the Grand Jury (Steinman v Nadjari, 49 AD2d 456 ) and to issue subpoenas on its behalf. | 2 | 1976–1976 |
Merson v. McNally
green
1 sentence2003Absent demonstration of some other injury, the petitioners lack standing to challenge the Planning Board’s determination, regardless of their purported proximity to the property of Tri-Murti Associates, LLC (see Scannell v Town Bd. of Town of Smithtown, supra; Matter of Kemp v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra at 467; Matter of McCabe v Minicozzi, supra). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Scannell v. Town Board of Smithtown
green
1 sentence2003Absent demonstration of some other injury, the petitioners lack standing to challenge the Planning Board’s determination, regardless of their purported proximity to the property of Tri-Murti Associates, LLC (see Scannell v Town Bd. of Town of Smithtown, supra; Matter of Kemp v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra at 467; Matter of McCabe v Minicozzi, supra). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. County of Suffolk
green
1 sentence1995To establish standing to challenge the City’s decision as to the disposition of the property a petitioner "must show that it would suffer direct harm, injury that is in some way different from that of the public at large” (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 774 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Sun-Brite Car Wash, Inc. v. Board of Zoning & Appeals
green
1 sentence1994As a threshold issue, the City argues that the petitioners lack standing to challenge this administrative action (see, Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Steinman v. Nadjari
neutral
1 sentence1976(Blair v United States, 250 US 273 ; People v Doe [Byk], 247 App Div 324 , affd without opn 272 NY 473 .) The Deputy Attorney-General has authority to appear before the Grand Jury (Steinman v Nadjari, 49 AD2d 456 ) and to issue subpoenas on its behalf. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
L & S Hospital & Institutional Supplies Co. v. Hynes
neutral
1 sentence1976(Blair v. United States, 250 US 273 ; People v. Doe [Byk], 247 App Div 324 , affd without opn 272 NY 473 .)” (Matter of L&S Hosp. & Institutional Supplies Co. v Hynes, 51 AD2d 515 .) Petitioners claim that the Grand Jury lacks a de facto existence and organization has been examined and found to be without merit. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Sylvia Lake Co. v. Northern Ore Co.
green
1 sentence1973In Sylvia Lake Co. v. Northern Ore Co. ( 242 N. Y. 144 ) the court reaffirmed the principle that the acts of a de facto Judge are valid and the attempt collaterally to attack the propriety of the Judge’s appointment was rejected. | 1 | 1973–1973 |